Sandra,
I'm afraid problems like yours happend often in the past and only seldom
there has actually been a problem in lwIP. Most of the time, it's wrong
usage of lwIP (by the lwIP port).
Now I don't know the zero copy driver from Stephane, but zero copy
imposes some special requirements on
Dietrich Gossen wrote:
how do I run the check unit tests forIPv6?
[.]
lwip/src/../test/unit/tcp/tcp_helper.c:158:18: error: ‘ip_addr_t’ has no member
named ‘addr’
pcb->local_ip.addr = local_ip->addr;
Indeed, tcp_helper.c was not adapted to IPv6. I've just pushed a fix for
this.
Simon
That doesn't sound like a generic lwIP problem but more a problem of
your port or of your usage of lwIP. Hard to say without debugging into
your application...
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
lwIP 2.0.1 is now available from the lwIP download area on savannah or
via git (using the STABLE-2_0_1_RELEASE tags in both repositories).
This is a small step release only to fix some bugs since 2.0.0 (see
CHANGELOG).
Thanks to all contributors!
Simon
Noam Weissman wrote:
" you get the port of the remote application and use sendto() to respond"
The above is not what was questioned.
Application at embedded side sends the same message to several recipients from
the same port.
Depending on the recipient design that you have NO CONTROL of ...
Neil Turner wrote:
Looking at api_msg.c line 1254 it check TCP and only sends as much
data as will fit in TCP (648 bytes in the case above). However after
this check at line 1291 it then does,
if ((conn->write_offset == conn->current_msg->msg.w.len) || dontblock)
{
/* return sent
Marco Jakobs wrote:
I'm experiencing an issue in LwIP 1.4.1 using PPP.
Vanilla 1.4.1? Absolutely no local diffs?
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
mgirke wrote:
I am having a NETCONN API, no RAW. One task for sending and one for
receiving.
Does that mean you are using the same netconn from two different threads?
For that to work, you need 2.0.0 and enable LWIP_NETCONN_FULLDUPLEX code.
Simon
Bram Peeters wrote:
Solutions I see:
[1] In LWIP_NETCONN_THREAD_SEM_ALLOC do an extra malloc of a pointer
variable besides creating the semaphore, fill in the handle of the
semaphore in that pointer variable and return the address of the
pointer variable in LWIP_NETCONN_THREAD_SEM_GET
Hey Marco,
Marco Jakobs wrote:
due to very limited resources I need to do a strange thing ;-)
I need to change the listener port of one single TCP listening
connection "on the fly" in its idle state.
Really? Very limited resources, using netconn and this should help?
Keeping that aside,
Norberto R. de Goes Jr. wrote:
After "netcon_close", I can observer a fault:
" ...
Assertion "pcb->state == LISTEN" failed at line 175 in
../src/lwip_src/lwip/src/core/tcp.c
..."
I cannot see an assert on this line. What version are you using? Please
try git master or 2.0.0 RC2,
the bug
Hakan Sezgin wrote:
I would like to read a parameter from an external device that supports SNMP
protocol.
How to use LwIp functions to read this parameter from my application to
external device ?
That's easy: you need to write an SNMP client. Or get one from somewhere.
I don't know of any for
Roger Cover wrote:
I am not familiar with the internal organization of the lwIP library. Which
debug statements should I turn on to find out what is happening in this case?
I'm sorry but I cannot tell you that right now. The simplest thing would
be to get someone with more knowledge to
Ari Suutari wrote:
This related to http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?48568
[..]
I just noticed this getting lost on this list: please file
bugs/tasks/patches on savannah for bug reports, patches or change
requests to prevent things getting lost on these lists (either because
too
anand arjunan wrote:
Should I do something in the http_sent callback to make room for next
set of data ?
I'm afraid I don't really understand your questions. As Noam said, have
a look at the http server, I guess you can learn everything you need
from there.
SImon
Hi,
originally, this hasn't been covered by lwIP: the systems were so slow
that you basically
never got into that mode (the assumption was that the network hardaware
is faster in
transmitting than the CPU is in sending more packets).
Of course, this doesn't hold any more, so today it's
Fotis Panagiotopoulos wrote:
As I see in wireshark, when my microcontroller sends an ARP request
about my gateway it does not receive any response. It continues
sending the same request for about 30 secs (the time I wasn't seeing
any UDP traffic), and then it starts sending the UDP packet.
Ajay Bhargav wrote:
I have recently submitted a patch (Patch #9080:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/patch/?9080)
Somehow the mail notice to lwip-devel didn't make it to my mail account.
Unfortunately, that can happen sometimes... Thanks for coming back on
this! :-)
Simon
Sylvain Rochet wrote:
Humm, I would have thought that a revision release didn't change the API
at all,
Thinking about it again, I guess it was an ABI change, not an API change.
For the target of lwIP (at that time?) keeping the API stable was enough.
And remember the API does *not* include
Sylvain Rochet wrote:
Humm, the raw API didn't change much, so it should be fine.
I guess so, too. In any way, if you have the sources, you could even fix
it if it needs fixing. I hope it doesn't (unless you add IPv6, in that
case, it might).
However, the netif API changed… especially if
Sergio R. Caprile wrote:
From what I've seen, the connection gets closed, and tens of
connections later the web server starts resending TCP stuff like data
and ACKs. It looks like trashed TCP memory or a queue somewhere.
Just from reading these lines: this could be caused by a buggy
Jan Menzel:
Whats the correct way to close a socket/netconn TCP connection without
loosing any data in send window?
The correct way for (standard) sockets is to enable LINGER mode and call
close() (read up on what linger is via google). Linger is supported by
lwIP sockets, but
Amit Ashara wrote:
http://lwip.wikia.com/wiki/LwIP_Developers_Manual
Oh, right. You see, I don't really follow the wiki... Wikia has way too
much advertising.
This implementation is only for a single port device [..]
So it is not clear where do I insert the LLDP frame?
That's what I
Amit Ashara wrote:
I would like to develop the Link Layer LLDP stack within lwIP framework.
Cool!
However the developer's manual link is empty.
I have absolutely *no* idea what this means.
Any suggestions where to start?
Implementing LLDP is a bit tricky if you have more than one port,
Noam Weissman wrote:
Do you recommend upgrading to 1.5
There is no 1.5! ST called it like that because when targeting a next
version, we set the version "developing towards 1.5", however, when
talking about "real" versions, after 1.4.1 comes 2.0.0.
or 2.0 if I do not need IPV6 ?
I am
Sergio R. Caprile wrote:
There is some sort of POST in the form of some cgi functions in the
browser in the contrib tree in 1.4.1. The browser calls user functions,
user functions are not part of the browser, they are either ST code or
your code.
Wait, I'm confused. Throughout this thread, are
Fotis Panagiotopoulos wrote:
I am asking for the brand/model number of the one that you are
successfully using, to search for a new or used one. As you can image
buying lots of switches in the hope that randomly one of them will
have this functionality, is not an good idea :)
You don't have
clement.deleurence wrote:
However, i don't know how to get POST data sent from my browser to the
server.
[..]
With the code shows above, i get this in *buf*:
[..]
I read severals times that POST data are appended to the request header,
after a double newline.
However, i have nothing more to read
Let's try again:
Sylvain Rochet wrote:
I assume your whole software quality is between
poor to critically wrong.
You wrote that because he pasted someone else's examples. I'll assume
you get it now ;-)
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
Иван wrote:
OK, that's your bug
Don't say so. That is the bug of ST company.
Sorry if it sounded like that. I didn't want to say "that's *your* bug"
but rather "*that's* your bug", meaning this is the problem you are
facing ;-)
Simon
___
A480G wrote:
but I got a replie that with RAW API streaming packages
cannot be achieved
Really? I must have missed that, because its not true and I would have
opposed :-)
You'll have to understand that the raw api is callback-style, not
sequential, but once you
understood how it works, you
anmk wrote:
because of power saving i have to power on and off ethernet
phy several time in my code (without reseting the MCU).
Is there any routing for deinitializing of LwIP?
No, that's not really required. You'd just need to set the netif down
and somehow stop the timers firing, then the
Jeff Barlow wrote:
[..] It seems fairly
obvious to me though that inserting extra code in the ISR path that
inspect some globals only to figure out that it is indeed in an ISR will
have an adverse effect on latency.
I might be picky here, but using C instead of assembler tends o have an
pischin...@lunatone.com:
i’m currently working on a project using lwip 1.4.1 stack (raw api
with tcpip), and since i’m still in development anyways i thought i
might use the newest lwip 2.0 stack instead. Can i just swap them out
or how do i “upgrade” to 2.0?
Unless you enable IPv6, you
Jeff Barlow wrote:
I think you will find that ChibiOS does much the same. The reasoning
as I understand it is to keep ISR code paths as short as possible to
minimize latency in hard real time systems.
Without knowing ChibiOS in detail, I'd be interested in knowing what
would be the actual
Jaime Fernandez Hoffiz wrote:
the isr is not in the function stack
Inline image 1
(this is a snippet of CCS TI IDE)
This indicates your "low_level_input" is already called from
tcpip_thread, not from isr. In that case, it's actually OK to call
"ethernet_input" (or passing it to netif_add).
Jaime Fernandez Hoffiz wrote:
I see lwip has various level of implementations,
netconn, raw api, and what I'm currently using: lwip_accept
Which one would you suggest I use?
That depends on your requirements. See the beginning of 'doc/rawapi.txt'
for a description of the 3 API forms and the
Hey all,
2.0.0 Beta1 is nearly 2 months old now and we should move on. 2 months
are already too long, so the only thing I plan to add for an actual
release is:
- make TCPIP_CORE_LOCKING the default (todo: implement mutexes for the
win32 port)
- fix the timing issues (patches #7855, #8712,
Wow, that was fast! :-)
Greg Smith wrote:
Please see more information commingled below.
Before that, though, I want to add that I did just today find the
reason for the dropped packets. I was having buffer overruns on my
serial port. I have corrected that problem. (The dropped packets
Greg Smith wrote:
Additionally, and this is the important part, I want to resume
listening for a new connection. So I call pppapi_listen() again at
the end of my link status callback function (which happens to look /a
lot/ like Sylvain's example in ppp.txt :-) ).
Coming back to the
Laurent BIERGE wrote:
So, do you know if there is a .doxyfile for this 2.0.0 version ?
I think Dirk just pushed a change to the file. If you're interested, you
can pull it from git (or download it via the git web interface).
Simon
___
lwip-users
Greg Smith wrote:
I am running my target in PPP(oS) Server Mode with lwIP version 2.0.0
Beta1.
Ehrm, is server mode supported by now? I thought we only supported
client mode...
Sylvain should know...
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
Greg Smith wrote:
Hello.
Using lwIP 2.0.0 Beta1, I have been able to connect my target via PPP
to an embedded Linux control. After successful connection, I am
trying to ping the lwIP target. It has about 25-33% packet loss over
time. From the debug output, I see that I'm occasionally
Sylvain Rochet wrote:
What worry me about both of them is that it is not possible to add
them without an API change, and we are in beta… that would have been
possible months ago but it's a bit too late now, you should have tried
the Git master branch :-)
Well, I've released the "beta" to get
Sylvain Rochet wrote:
Not really, the last user of the SIO framework is SLIP. The SIO API
sucks, I proposed my help to get rid of it in SLIP in
<20150914191715.ga1...@gradator.net> but the change was not acknowledged.
Is that a link to a mail? Or to a bugtracker entry? I don't remember,
but
Greg Smith wrote:
In lwIP 2.0.0 Beta1, it has a prototype in sio.h for sio_write, which
I believe is the generic function name for the PPP output function.
Not exactly. sio_write is used for PPP, for slipif and maybe for other
netifs.
Should this have a prototype of:
u32_t
goldsimon wrote:
Andrey Butok wrote:
What are the best ways to contribute to lwIP stack project?
I mean bug fixing and adding new features and protocols.
Forgot to say: you also seem to haven't found 'doc/contrib.txt'... :-/
Simon
___
lwip-users
Zhuoran Zhao wrote:
is there any open source lwip port for raspberry pi 3 making use of
the on board network interface driver?
None that I have heard of.
Do you want to run lwIP on linux but use the hardware's network
interface? As I see it, the network interface can either be used by
linux
Andrey Butok wrote:
What are the best ways to contribute to lwIP stack project?
I mean bug fixing and adding new features and protocols.
The way we do that is to add bug entries and post fixes and patches. If
you found this list, you might already know the bug/patch tracker is
located at
Erkan Ersoy wrote:
My device has both http server (web interface) and http client. While
I have multiple listening ports including web interface i didnt have
problems but when i try to have connect to remote server i have
problem. I wonder if somebody already solved that problem.
You wonder
Pidcam wrote:
Can someone give me some details about how to setup een LwIP netconn
TCP client connection, then, close - connect, many times.
That's simply not supported: after closing, you have to create a new
netconn.
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing
Pradeep Kumar wrote:
I would like to know what is the preferred period(is it 250ms?).
how frequently should the sys_check_timeouts() function be called?
AutoIP uses 100ms, tcp uses 250ms. I think these are the shortest.
Jitter should not be too much of a problem, so without AutoIP enabled,
Pîrvu Mihai wrote:
The port I'm using is using 1.3.2 version
Yikes! There have really been many fixes since then!
I'll try to follow how select is implemented
Why don't you actually use select? However, there may be bugs in 1.3.2's
select...
Simon
Pîrvu Mihai wrote:
I've read that different threads cannot call the same socket/netconn
session at the same time, so I guess this is where my problem lays.
You can use the fairly new option LWIP_NETCONN_FULLDUPLEX set to 1,
which in combination with thread-local semaphores
Jaime Fernandez Hoffiz wrote:
So even for a udp sender sounds like I still need to call the
tcpip_thread.
Normally you wouldn't, but you need to configure the whole platform
correctly. What you're trying to do is mixing half NO_SYS=0 and half
NO_SYS=1. And that's not meant to work.
Simon
Jaime Fernandez Hoffiz wrote:
What I'm trying to do now, is to understand a little better to layers
of lwip and create a simple udp sender without having to call: [..]
Why do you want to call lwip_init() instead of tcpip_init()?
It can work, but you need to adapt the rest of your port to use
Noam,
I'll have to add some more here:
Noam Weissman wrote:
[..]
The ETH PHY is connected from one side to the magnetics and from the other side
it has a MAC interface.
[..]
LwIP or any other TCP stack need to read/or data to/from the MAC interface.
This is the hardware driver that connects
SergeV wrote:
I several times came across references that SPI is used in place of RMII, to
communicate over LAN. Frankly I'm in doubt this is possible at all
You're not interfacing the LAN through SPI (BTW, you're not doing that
with RMII, either, you interface the PHY). Instead, you
sergio ramos wrote:
Can anyone go through the steps required to configure lwIP for
private_mibs?
The snmp stack just got a major change/improvement so that you can
include arbitrary sub-trees, not just ".private" MIBs. Documentation
availabe on the web is probably outdated.
It seems some
Martin Velek wrote:
can I detect that the DHCP was enabled for a particular netif
interface without checking netif internals?
No, not yet, but that's a good idea.
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
Although it was a few days ago, I have to come back on this (not to
offend anyone, just to prevent confusion):
Sergio R. Caprile wrote:
[..] I added HTTP AUTH to my own web server, which
is a fork of the contrib tree official web server for RAW API.
You are welcomed to see if it fits your
Sergio R. Caprile wrote:
Do you actually have a VM running lwIP ???
[..] please enlighten me on how you have lwIP running by itself on a VM.
That would be fun. You "just" need to write a driver for one of the NICs
supported by VMWare and somehow get a time base :-)
Simon
Norberto R. de Goes Jr. wrote:
Is this behavior correct?
That depends.
Please what does I need to do to the reply go back by netif-1 ?
Most probably you wil need corect IP settings in lwIP and the VMs to get
the answer back to the correct netif.
Simon
Esa Hill wrote:
Is it possible to add external MIBs (for example LLDP MIB) to LwIP's SNMP
implementation?
No, not right now.
I've been checking the LwIP code (1.4.1) for the private MIB implementation, but I got
the idea that it is only possible to add stuff under "internet .1.3.6.1" or
Michael Steinecke wrote:
Your Stack Trace Locks like your Ethernet Driver or ethernetif.c is
not well implemented. Usually you should pass the received packet from
the IRQ context to a task, which calls LWIP.
Well, if you really know what you're doing you *could* use lwIP from ISR
context,
Andy Pont wrote:
[..]ROM space is therefore limited (64K max for everything) as are the services
that are available.
I would disable these, unless you need them of course: IP_REASSEMBLY,
IP_FRAG, LWIP_ICMP, LWIP_RAW, LWIP_UDP, TCP_QUEUE_OOSEQ, TCP_OVERSIZE,
LWIP_HAVE_LOOPIF, LWIP_STATS.
Andy Pont wrote:
net/lwIP/src/core/inet_chksum.c:153:9: error: assuming that the loop counter
does not overflow [-Werror=unsafe-loop-optimizations]
while (len > 1) {
^
I don't get this, but I'm running gcc 5.2.0 (MinGW-W64). Anyway, I can't
see the underflow issue here. Maybe
Gennady Shmakov wrote:
Thanks for clarification. Does it make sense to move these defines in
opt.h to avoid editing *.c files when these features are not needed?
#define LWIP_DNS_SECURE_RAND_XID1
#define LWIP_DNS_SECURE_NO_MULTIPLE_OUTSTANDING 2
#define
Robert Deschambault wrote:
I just read about this protocol and I was wondering what is involved
in implementing it using lwIP on an embedded target?
Implementing it is not really an lwIP thing: the protocol itself runs
below what lwIP cares for, you just have to ensure you can safely send
Sandra Gilge wrote:
is there a stable revision between the head revision and the latest
revision I could take?
If you mean between 1.4.1 and git master, then no, unfortunately.
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
Sandra Gilge wrote:
Updating new revisions is with my port is not so easy since the port for
Blackfin is from analog devices and they made quite some changes to the
lwip stack.
Do they have a download link where I could check the sources they
provide? I'm always interested in seeing what the
] on behalf of
goldsi...@gmx.de [goldsi...@gmx.de]
Sent: 07 September 2015 23:55:15
To: Mailing list for lwIP users
Subject: Re: [lwip-users] Call tcp_close() out of tcp_recv()-context?
Karl Karpfen wrote:
My question: can I do a tcp_close() from within my_recv() which is
called in lwIP's receive-context
Karl Karpfen wrote:
My question: can I do a tcp_close() from within my_recv() which is
called in lwIP's receive-context
Yes you can. And the lwIP API allows it.
(which possibly may be a receive-IRQ)?
No. Unless you take special action to prevent concurrent access to the
lwIP core (i.e.
Michael Steinberg wrote:
ChibiOS allows to close a mailbox while somebody is waiting on it,
notifying the waiter. Is that generally possible on other platforms?
No, at least it's not a feature you can generally expect to have when
writing a port.
is it really the most elegant solution to
Michael Steinberg wrote:
I could not find a mechanism where lwip notifies me that a lwip-pbuf is
available again
LWIP_HOOK_MEMP_AVAILABLE(memp_t_type)
Now during my custom pbuf usage I ran across situations, were lwip would
call mem_trim or other such functions, not checking for whether the
Michael Steinberg wrote:
So the next step in my eyes is to replace the tcpip-thread alltogether
with my own [..]
Does this make sense?
Absolutely. I did this as well in an environmnet not using sockets but
only custom, lwIP-specific code.
You are right that there is room for improvement
Michael Steinberg wrote:
I'm using lwip version 1.41 stable here
Yeah, well, you shouldn't. I know it's bad we don't have a newer release
but 1.4.1 is really not very stable any more: there are a *lot* of
bugfixes as well as new features in git master that you shouldn't miss.
I was always
Michael Steinberg wrote:
One of the services which are running
here is a Precision-Time-Protocol slave clock. This protocol relies on
hardware time stamping of arrival or transmit of so called event
messages.
I'm aware of the difficulties a PTP slave (or even bridge
implementation) faces with
Sandra Gilge wrote:
Now I’m having problems with following assertion when calling select.
LWIP_ASSERT(sock-select_waiting = 0, sock-select_waiting = 0);
Do I remember correctly that there was a bug in there somewhere?
Depending on your thread priorities, git master could fix the issue.
Robert Deschambault wrote:
Was there anything else you would like me to try? I have confirmed
that I am freeing the pbuf in our code.
While I have forgotton to answer (sorry for that), I really can't tell
what to check next. When the MEMP_TCPIP_MSG_INPKT pool is empty, it
should get filled
Eason wrote:
My boss assign me a strange project, he wants lwip doing a simple job as a
router, and this device have two ethernet ports, but it has only one network
interface card, the device maybe route for different network segment, eg:
192.168.1.2 send data to 172.16.0.101
I see what you're
Robert Deschambault wrote:
I have enabled LWIP_STATS and LWIP_STATS_DISPLAY. Should I enable
things like PBUF_DEBUG? Will I see any messages on my debug printf
display? Or should I put a breakpoint where lwip stats error number
gets incremented?
As a start, I would not change anything but
Edgar Bonet wrote:
PS: This is the second time I am sending this message. First time was
last Thursday, and it did not get through. At this point I assume it has
been dropped, not just delayed. This time I am omitting the patches that
where originally attached, on the assumption that the list
Sylvain Rochet wrote:
Strangely enough, the example project our modbus client is based on
(freemodbus-v1.5.0\demo\STR71XTCP from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/freemodbus.berlios/files/freemodbus-v1.5.0.zip)
also uses raw API and seems to run its own thread.
They are doing it wrong. period.
Robert Deschambault wrote:
[..] We have noticed that when we use the v1.4.1 milestone release it
runs as long as we care to test. When we use the sources from the
lwip master branch, it runs for about 18 hours. What is odd is that
it isn't apparent that anything bad has happened, the threads
Evan_Pan:
Can I ask just yes or no that IS IPV6 available in LWIP_STABLE-1_4_1?
No, it's not. 1.5.0 will be the first version to officially include IPv6
support. In the meantime, git master is quite stable to get started.
Simon
___
lwip-users
Hi all,
I just wanted to warn you I'm going to push a rather big change
regarding ipv4/ipv6 integration where the old 'ip_addr_t' will be
renamed to ip4_addr_t and ip_addr_t changed to replace ipX_addr_t,
including a version information. This ensures ipv4 and ipv6 addresses
are handled equal
goldsi...@gmx.de wrote:
Ivan Delamer wrote:
I don't use the socket API but as far as I can remember, all you need
is one socket listening on IPv6 ANY address.
Is that so?
After a bit of reading, I'm back in the issue: yes, it's that way and it
should work in lwIP, too. If not, that's
Mohsin wrote:
I've also heard that setting sin6_addr to in6addr_any will work for both
IPv4 and IPv6, that's why only I was looking for in6addr_any in the stack.
So, my ultimate question is whether in6addr_any is equivalent to setting
sin6_addr=0
Yes, it is. Jus like using
Ivan Delamer wrote:
I don't use the socket API but as far as I can remember, all you need
is one socket listening on IPv6 ANY address.
Is that so? What's the behaviour then if you first bind an IPv4-ANY
socket and then the IPv6-ANY socket? Does it run IPv6-only or fail?
I must admit I'm not
Mohsin wrote:
Actually, I don't calculate IP checksums in hardware but in software
I think Sergio simply got confused by you saying For ethernet packets,
I'm claculating checksum in hardware. Now I guess you meant the CRC
with that?
Still I'm unable to find the cause of IP checksum error
Narke, please remove lwip-users@nongnu.org from your linkedin profile.
Alternatively I'll have to do that myself :-)
Simon
Mário Ribeiro wrote:
LinkedIn
Mohsin wrote:
One more thing is that with exactly same IP configurations, webserver
code and same PC device, webserver is working for one of my previous
backup codes (stable released LWIP 1.4.1 and not git head updated).
So, I guess there may be some change in the functionality of
Oscar, (or whatever your name is), after reading this twice: please
register with the mailing list on savannah instead of writing via nabble
so I don't have to manually accept all your (duplicate) mails.
Thanks,
Simon
oscargomezf wrote:
Hi,
I¡ve got the same problem. Doy you find an
Jin Won Seo wrote:
/* Clear the queue handle. */
sem-queue=0;
/* Delete Sem , By Jin */
vQueueDelete(sem-queue);
[..]
I added |vQueueDelete(sem-queue);| that was suggested by someone,
but still all same.
This seems more of a FreeRtos or TI issue, which I both don't use, but
calling
rohanm wrote:
[..]
This is off-topic, but please subscribe to the list before posting, I
have to manually accept all posts of non-subscribed users:
https://savannah.nongnu.org/mail/?group=lwip
Thanks,
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
Bastiaan van Kesteren wrote:
Once the link has been up and goes down, the very next call
to one of these 'client' applications causes it to hang;
[..]
The sys_arch_sem_wait() never returns, the semaphore is never signalled.
Plugging the network cable back in doesn't resolve the issue, a restart
Matthias Dübon wrote:
I have seen the SNMP example in lwip-contrib. As far as I understand
there is only one community right now. I am wondering if it's a big
effort to add SNMP read, write communities to this SNMP stack.
Any hints/thoughts are very appreciated.
This shouldn't be too much of
Newman, Adam wrote:
The comments for the smtp app state that the smtp_send_request should
be created somewhere safe for interrupt context. Is this at all
related to the above unsafe-ness
Yes. That is, if I understood you correctly. You should use
smtp_send_mail_int (see below) when not
Karl Karpfen wrote:
BTW: ipaddr_aton already returns network byte order and
udp_sendto() takes a host byte order port. Please first check your
code before assuming bugs in other people's code ;-)
Sorry but I did nowhere and never blamed somebody for bugs, I just
asked a question
501 - 600 of 1087 matches
Mail list logo
