[lwip-users] ppp-new threading question
I feel almost embarrassed asking this but I haven't completely figured it out yet. In ppp-new, are packets sent to sio_write() from tcpip thread, or from the RX process thread? Or both? I just ask because sio_write() may block for some time (at least in my basic implementation) and I'm wondering if this is blocking the rest of the stack. Cheers Ivan ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
[lwip-users] DHCP callback was removed - Correct way to obtain new address?
Hi all, I am just porting my application from version 1.3.2 to the latest 1.4.2. and I was wondering why my application does not get called back from the stack when the DHCP As I found out the callback was removed. My application has to know the address for displaying purposes, so do I have to poll for a new address? What is the proper way to obtain a new address? Regards Chris DÜRR DENTAL AG Höpfigheimer Strasse 17 74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen Deutschland / Germany Tel. + 49 (0) 7142 / 705-0 Fax + 49 (0) 7142 / 705-500 http://www.duerrdental.com Join us on Facebook www.facebook.com/DuerrDentalAG Firmensitz / Registered Office: Höpfigheimer Str. 17, 74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen Handelsregister / Register of Commerce: Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 727006 Vorstand / Executive Board: Martin Dürrstein (Vorsitzender / CEO), Axel Schramm Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates / Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Joachim Loh ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Re: [lwip-users] DHCP callback was removed - Correct way to obtain new address?
Chris, I am using the TCP RAW. After starting DHCP I wait for the IP by using: While(main_netif.dchp-state != DHCP_BOUND). After the state changes to DHCP_BOUND the ip is in the pcb (main_netif.ip_addr). You can periodically check to see if the ip changes. I also include in the while statement a timer in case there is a DHCP problem. Paul From: lwip-users-bounces+pwebber=heat-timer@nongnu.org [mailto:lwip-users-bounces+pwebber=heat-timer@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Chris Maier Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 10:33 AM To: lwip-users@nongnu.org Subject: [lwip-users] DHCP callback was removed - Correct way to obtain new address? Hi all, I am just porting my application from version 1.3.2 to the latest 1.4.2. and I was wondering why my application does not get called back from the stack when the DHCP As I found out the callback was removed. My application has to know the address for displaying purposes, so do I have to poll for a new address? What is the proper way to obtain a new address? Regards Chris DÜRR DENTAL AG Höpfigheimer Strasse 17 74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen Deutschland / Germany Tel. + 49 (0) 7142 / 705-0 Fax + 49 (0) 7142 / 705-500 http://www.duerrdental.com Join us on Facebook www.facebook.com/DuerrDentalAGhttp://www.facebook.com/DuerrDentalAG Firmensitz / Registered Office: Höpfigheimer Str. 17, 74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen Handelsregister / Register of Commerce: Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 727006 Vorstand / Executive Board: Martin Dürrstein (Vorsitzender / CEO), Axel Schramm Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates / Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Joachim Loh ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Re: [lwip-users] DHCP callback was removed - Correct way to obtain new address?
When I did it, I basically polled for netif.dhcp-state == DHCP_BOUND and read ipaddr = netif.ip_addr; netmask = netif.netmask; gw = netif.gw; but now I realize the dhcp code calls netif_set_up() when it reaches that state, which also calls NETIF_STATUS_CALLBACK if LWIP_NETIF_STATUS_CALLBACK is defined. Now, I've been calling netif_set_up() before dhcp_start() cause I though the ifc needed to be somehow up before UDP/IP would be sent through it... looks like I was wrong and that was not necessary, or worse, not correct. ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Re: [lwip-users] ppp-new threading question
Hi Ivan, On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:16:04AM -0600, Ivan Delamer wrote: I feel almost embarrassed asking this but I haven't completely figured it out yet. In ppp-new, are packets sent to sio_write() from tcpip thread, or from the RX process thread? Or both? tcpip thread only. (The stack owned RX process thread does not exist anymore, this was broken by design). I just ask because sio_write() may block for some time (at least in my basic implementation) and I'm wondering if this is blocking the rest of the stack. Yes, it will, sio_write() should not block. Sylvain signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Re: [lwip-users] ppp-new threading question
Ok, that's what I thought. I will have to re-implement sio_write(). What I'm concerned also is, sio_write() is meant to block until all data is pushed out. This can be more than a second in a slow 9600bps connection (still used sometimes!!!). Will PPP try to do something during this time like try to re-send the packet or think it was lost? I'm not familiar with the internal ppp timer processes. It also means more dynamic memory allocation since a reference to pbuf is not passed to sio_write(). Just thinking out loud I guess :-) Cheers Ivan Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:29:17 +0200 From: Sylvain Rochet grada...@gradator.net To: Mailing list for lwIP users lwip-users@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [lwip-users] ppp-new threading question Message-ID: 20140829202917.ga29...@gradator.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Ivan, On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:16:04AM -0600, Ivan Delamer wrote: I feel almost embarrassed asking this but I haven't completely figured it out yet. In ppp-new, are packets sent to sio_write() from tcpip thread, or from the RX process thread? Or both? tcpip thread only. (The stack owned RX process thread does not exist anymore, this was broken by design). I just ask because sio_write() may block for some time (at least in my basic implementation) and I'm wondering if this is blocking the rest of the stack. Yes, it will, sio_write() should not block. Sylvain ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Re: [lwip-users] ppp-new threading question
Hi Ivan, On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 02:38:11PM -0600, Ivan Delamer wrote: Ok, that's what I thought. I will have to re-implement sio_write(). What I'm concerned also is, sio_write() is meant to block until all data is pushed out. This can be more than a second in a slow 9600bps connection (still used sometimes!!!). Will PPP try to do something during this time like try to re-send the packet or think it was lost? I'm not familiar with the internal ppp timer processes. Packet is lost, in my opinion this is the TCP job (or application job in case of UDP or anything else) to retry. Dropping the packet if sio_write() is going to block (eg. buffer full) is the right thing to do. PPP only retries controls (LCP/IPCP/...) packets, with default timeouts long enough for any link speed. Input IP and IPv6 encapsulated in PPP packets are just decapsulated/deHDLCified and forwarded straight off to the lwIP stack, same for IP and IPv6 output packets. I would have preferred an API which used pbuf instead of raw data, so that you can keep a ref on the pbuf while it is being sent over the serial link, therefore preventing the double buffering requirement, but I already changed the API too much ;-) ... and SIO API is also used for SLIP links. It also means more dynamic memory allocation since a reference to pbuf is not passed to sio_write(). Hey, you are reading my mind. Sylvain signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Re: [lwip-users] DHCP callback was removed - Correct way to obtainnew address?
Hi, ST micro has an example on how to use it. Check their latest examples for STM32F4 Hope that helped, Noam. -Original Message- From: lwip-users-bounces+noam=silrd@nongnu.org on behalf of Sergio R. Caprile Sent: Fri 8/29/2014 9:02 PM To: lwip-users@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [lwip-users] DHCP callback was removed - Correct way to obtainnew address? When I did it, I basically polled for netif.dhcp-state == DHCP_BOUND and read ipaddr = netif.ip_addr; netmask = netif.netmask; gw = netif.gw; but now I realize the dhcp code calls netif_set_up() when it reaches that state, which also calls NETIF_STATUS_CALLBACK if LWIP_NETIF_STATUS_CALLBACK is defined. Now, I've been calling netif_set_up() before dhcp_start() cause I though the ifc needed to be somehow up before UDP/IP would be sent through it... looks like I was wrong and that was not necessary, or worse, not correct. ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. winmail.dat___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
