Re: [lwip-users] Is netconn/socket fullduplex still "really alpha"?

Lwip packet processing is done in single thread and hence it's a sequential operation for either incoming or outgoing packets. It may be true. Regards, Ajay Bhargav On Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 11:17 PM Grant Edwards wrote: > I've been reading up on netconn/sockets and thread-safety. At > https://www.

Re: [lwip-users] Requirement that sys_thread_t is integer (or pointer)?

: > On 2021-11-15, Ajay Bhargav via lwip-users wrote: > > > You can define it as integer or pointer based on your system. > > Yes, I know I can. > > I want to know if it is _required_ to be an integer or pointer. > > > Its definately not a structure. > > It de

Re: [lwip-users] Requirement that sys_thread_t is integer (or pointer)?

You can define it as integer or pointer based on your system. Its definately not a structure. Regards, Ajay Bhargav On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 10:36 PM Grant Edwards wrote: > Is it required that sys_thread_t be a pointer or integer type? > > The documentation doesn't state that. The example implemen

Re: [lwip-users] Are sys_arch_protect/unprotect required to nest?

gav via lwip-users wrote: > > > protect/unprotect is totally implementation dependent with only > > intention of providing exclusive access to network related operation > > to be performed without any context switching. You can do this by > > using a mutext in simplest way &

Re: [lwip-users] Are sys_arch_protect/unprotect required to nest?

lwip when it comes to protect/unprotect. Implementation is upon the programmer depending on system. Regards, Ajay Bhargav On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 8:24 PM Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2021-11-15, Ajay Bhargav via lwip-users wrote: > > > sys_arch_protect() and sys_arch_unprotect() is

Re: [lwip-users] Are sys_arch_protect/unprotect required to nest?

sys_arch_protect() and sys_arch_unprotect() is always called in pairs with call order maintained. From rtos prospective, you can consider sys_arch_protect() as enter_critical_section() and sys_arch_unprotect() as exit_critical_section(). These calls might already be provided by rtos you're using.

Re: [lwip-users] Pbuf Copy to Another Pbuf

Why don’t you use pbuf_copy instead? err_t pbuf_copy (struct pbuf *p_to, const struct pbuf *p_from); Ref:https://www.nongnu.org/lwip/2_0_x/group__pbuf.html#gaba88511dee3df4b631fde691f421320d Regards,Ajay Bhargav  From: Duygu D.Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 3:59 PMTo: Mailing list for lwIP usersSubj

Re: [lwip-users] [lwip] Why value of O_NONBLOCK/O_RDONLY/O_WRONLY/O_RDWR in src/include/lwip/sockets.h are not equal to the posix?

Even newlib’s fcntl define O_* as follows /* * Flag values for open(2) and fcntl(2) * The kernel adds 1 to the open modes to turn it into some * combination of FREAD and FWRITE. */#define O_RDONLY0   /* +1 == FREAD */#define O_WRONLY1   /* +1 == FWRITE */#define O_RDWR  2   

Re: [lwip-users] [lwip] Why value of O_NONBLOCK/O_RDONLY/O_WRONLY/O_RDWR in src/include/lwip/sockets.h are not equal to the posix?

If you’re using a posix style system of any system which already define O_RDONLY/WRONLY/RDWR then you can include that file in your arch.h or cc.h probably The sockets.h definition is only for the system which does not define anything. So it does not matter what the values are. Regards,Ajay Bhargav

Re: [lwip-users] NTP Client, DNS etc

https://www.nongnu.org/lwip/2_0_x/index.html Regards,Ajay Bhargav  From: Bomsta, DanSent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:14 AMTo: Mailing list for lwIP usersSubject: [lwip-users] NTP Client, DNS etc Can anyone point me to documentation for using NTP and DNS?  Do I need to look at the Doxygen and reve

Re: [lwip-users] Basic Authentication

Its better to use set-cookie header so cookies are controlled from server side rather than client side. Regards,Ajay Bhargav  From: Trampas SternSent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 8:43 PMTo: Mailing list for lwIP usersSubject: Re: [lwip-users] Basic Authentication document.cookie = "sessionToken=3"