Hello Jim,
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 17:51, Jim Gibbons wrote: > I was hoping that you would get a more expert opinion than mine, but I > haven't seen any, so I guess mine will have to serve. > Serves perfectly well, and shows great expertise :-) > It looks to me as though your model for the use of lwIP relates to an > older version of lwIP. etharp_ip_input used to return NULL always. > etharp_arp_input used to return a pbuf if it needed to have an arp > output packet transmitted. > > In 1.1.0, someone modified etharp, so that it would return void from > etharp_ip_input and etharp_arp_input. etharp_ip_input probably should > have been that way all along. etharp_arp_input was perfectly capable > of calling the output function itself, since it had a netif. It all > makes more sense the way it is now, but it does make some old code > implementations obsolete. Thanks for this clear explanation. This is exactly what happened. That someone was me, and yes, sometimes API changes have to be made to work towards a cleaner implementation. Regards, Leon. _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
