Sylvain Rochet wrote:
Hello Stefan,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 08:35:15PM +, Stefan P. Galanos wrote:
As a side question, I was wondering why the system command ifconfig(in
file tapif.c) used to configure the tap0 device uses the gateway
instead of the IP:
GW is Linux-side, Host is
The lwIP project is still active?
Yes. Maybe we're a little short on developers, though...
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Jan Menzel wrote:
Maybe I did not enabled all options as I have not seen
the ASSERT() message.
[..]
Today I discovered some more interesting points about the TCP checksum
problem: the content of the packet sometimes changes with each
retransmission. The first as lost of zeros at the end. The
Jackie:
After stress test and debugging, more than 10 hours uploading data, I
found the PCB got corrupt in tcp_output(). The case is that
tcp_output() can be blocked by the lower-level function call in
tcp_output_segment(), in which somehow the buffer of lower-layer
protocol is full, so the
Robert Deschambault wrote:
I am getting many compiler warnings that seem to be tied to:
LWIP_PLATFORM_DIAG.
LWIP_PLATFORM_DIAG has to be defined in your cc.h, like this one from
the win32 port (remember hat it is called with double (()) to be able to
pass varargs without ther newer
Thiscord wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this. Isn't input processing ballback-based?
Yes it is. In an OS (multithreaded) environment, input processing is
done in tcpip_thread. This means you must not call lwIP core functions
(except for some memory functions and the netconn/socket
Thiscord wrote
The tcpSendQueue then only hands over the size of the data to send to a
dedicated send task.
The send task looks like this:
uint16 payloadLength;
while(1)
{
xQueueReceive( tcpSendQueue, payloadLength, portMAX_DELAY );
Thiscord wrote:
I see. The problem is that for time reasons the port that I've set up is done
very poorly. It uses the raw api. It is nothing but a single thread that
initializes the stack and then lowers its priority to minimum and loops
endlessly
That can't work: input processing is not
Noam weissman wrote:
Do not expect high throughput from LwIP. It is small but not very fast.
I have read people are able to run it at about 1Mb, maybe I am wrong.
Yes, you are. Getting 1 MByte/second on a TCP connection (if that's what
you mean by 1Mb), is much too slow for lwIP. Back in
Karl Karpfen wrote:
[..] Since it works smoothly with Linux I think that happens because
Windows no longer accepts any packets
As it's always better to know than to guess, why don't you check wih
wireshark? If windows does not accept (i.e. ACK, in TCP language)
packets any more, you should
Mike,
any update on this? I'd love to fix these things if they are bugs
actually. In that case, we should add a bug tracker entry.
Simon
Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
Mike,
You're mixing up various things here, I'll try to sort them out below. Anyway,
possible bug reports like these are
HaaCee2 wrote:
I am not entirely familiar with the ideas behind LwIP. But sourcebased
routing is very much in line with rfc1122 (ip for hosts). I quote:
Under the Strong ES model, the route computation for an outgoing datagram
is the mapping:
route(src IP addr, dest
HaaCee2 wrote:
I beg to differ
I've added a task for this to the tracker:
https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/index.php?13397
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Matthias Dübon wrote:
calling sys_check_timeouts in the main loop does not suffice, cause
the tcp_tmr is not activated in the timers.c module.
Matthias, there would be something seriously wrong with your code if
calling sys_check_timeouts wouldn't suffice.
I wonder how what are you actually
I'm forwarding this to lwip-users, which is more the target of this than
lwip-devel.
rlesko wrote:
I am trying to get the lwIP test apps running in a windows environment. I'm
not sure if its relevant but I am running Windows 7 via Parallels on a mac.
The ping test app works and now I've moved
Michael Steinecke wrote:
currently I'm struggling while creating an application for a custom
STM32F429ZG based custom board using LwIP.
Too sad the F429 discovery board doesn't have an ethernet connector or I
could try to reproduce this :-)
To achieve maximum throughput, I have done some
rlesko wrote:
-Through TCPView I can see on my machine that there is nothing connected on
port 80.
Maybe it's me, but I don't get what this has to do with lwIP?
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
mobin.seven wrote:
I want to close idle connections on server side with 15s timeout.
Is SO_RCVTIMEO what I need?
I use this line:
int timeout = 15000;
lwip_setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO, timeout, sizeof(timeout));
Where did you get that line from? lwIP tries to implement the
Krzysztof Wesołowski wrote:
Second possible issue is that some old (?) STM32 demo code only
processed one packet per interrupt, causing extra packets to be
stalled in memory.
That's a really good hint. I keep forgetting about that, although I'm
using their controllers - but not with the code
Wendel Assis wrote:
Please, could you share what could we expect in terms of new features
for 1.5.0?
Have a look at http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lwip.git/tree/CHANGELOG
, I've just updated it to show the differences between 1.4.1 and git
master. This got messed up because 1.4.1 and the
tm...@web.de wrote:
When updating lwip from 1.3.2 to 1.4.1 I see some asserts checking for
alignment equal 4. They are hard coded.
Does this mean lwip can only be used with MEM_ALIGNMENT equal 4 from this
Release on?
No.
You might get a more detailed answer by telling us exactly which
Alain Mouette wrote:
Hi, I have do do something a little odd, and I would like to have your
advice about it and to know if anyone has ever seen anything like it
I need to simulate the interface available on the Arduino (with the
WizChip), I believe that wiht such an interface I could use some
ffddybz wrote:
I succeed in connecting my board(ruuning lwip-head as tcp udp
server) with my computer(Debian 7.4 as tcp udp client) via ipv6
socket program.
(board)-(router supported ipv6)-(computer).
The state of IPv6 implementation totally depends on the version of lwIP
you're using.
Fabian Koch wrote:
according to a nessus scan, LwIP is vulnerable to CVE-2004-0230, which
means that it accepts a spoofed Packet with RST flag if the packets
sequence number fits somewhere in the current window.
[..]
The easiest way to handle this attack would be only accept an incoming
RST
Smartfox Technik wrote:
is the current master stable to use? Or can you tell me a previus commit
hash which is stable enough?
I think the master should be pretty stable. Aside from IPv6 integration,
there have been pretty much only bug fixes since 1.4.x.
Simon
Sandeep Parvatikar wrote:
I have a doubt w.r.t parallel triggering of DHCP and AutoIp IPv4
address assignment methods.
When both these IP address assignment are triggered parallel and if
the DHCP server response is slow...AutoIp is assigned to my NIC. But
now I want to continue transmitting
Robert Lacoste wrote:
We tried to disable the check (TCP_OVERSIZED=0), the assert doesn't
fails but the stack hangs.
There has been a bug which is now fixed somewhere in the oversized code,
so you might want to give the current git master a try, only to see if
it works better.
Having said
Gisle Vanem wrote:
Me too. A socket-handle should only be an index into some
process-global table. So (comparing to other OS'es), there
should be nothing preventing us using sockets across threads.
There's nothing preventing you from using a socket across threads. You
only can't use it from
Fabian Koch wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what parts of the LwIP stack
stop us from doing that and I would love to get some pointers (from
you, Simon?) where there would be work to do to make that work.
There are multiple issues:
- When an application thread makes a socket
Fixed, also the other 2. Thanks for
reporting.
Simon
Eric ARMENGAUD wrote:
Hello,
I
would like be sure that a parenthesis is not missing
This
is
Pomeroy, Marty wrote:
And with humble apologies to the many capable and
bright lwIP developers and fans...
That's OK for me. lwIP hasn't been designed for safety. While I haven't
seen problems in our applicaitons, the usage of pointers and alignment
would make me a bit hesistant in trying to
Sylvain Rochet wrote:
Humm... cc.h is part of your lwip port which is actually not, strictly
speaking, part of the lwip source.
Exactly. Of which port are your speaking?
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
Dinesh Arunachalam wrote:
how to integrate
the SMTP with lwIP -1.3.2.please give suggestions to implement it.
The SMTP client only support unencrypted transfer. It supports different
authentication methods by default. Usage is like this:
// first, set the server address
Erik Ekman wrote:
Where is the current 1.5.0 beta download?
There is no 1.5 created yet, you have to use HEAD right now.
- Work in progress... Time keeps running away, but I hope to release
the beta one of the next weeks...
Simon
___
lwip-users
vincent cui wrote:
That's really a problem .
What's a problem?
My question is DHCP and AUTO IP threadswitching automatically in DHCP server
fine case or bad case ?
Again, I don't understand. DHCP and AutoIP don't have an extra thread.
And I found that AUTOIP switching has problem if I
Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
Maybe it's in the lwiphtml CVS?
Just checked that, but it effectively does not contain anything helpful. :-(
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
??? wrote:
I set the TCP_MSS=1460, and my SHTML file has some SSI tags. when the
first SSI tag appears after 1460(TCP_MSS) bytes
of the file,all is ok!
However, when the first SSI tag appears in the first 1460 bytes(e.g.
the first !--#tag_name-- appears after
100th byte) of the file, then
Firedog I. wrote:
I'm using lwIP v1.31 with an 72MHz Cortex M3 Processor and 64kB RAM. I
need to write small 10-35bit messages as fast as possible through
ethernet. I've set up a timer to 50ms, the timer interrupt executes a
tcp_write and a tcp_output.
My problem is that every outgoing
chrysn wrote:
i've managed to include the ping example in my test project, and i can
ping from the device to my pc. but since i included ping, the other way
round doesn't work any more: the incoming package takes the don't eat
the packet path in the else PING_USE_SOCKETS (ie NO_SYS) branch's
Mark Lakata wrote:
I'm not sure how to get the size of the connections's TX/RX window
sizes.
The easiest way is wiresharp. Posting a pcap here might help us to look
at what's going on.
Here is a snippet from the lwipopts.h.
[..]
#define TCP_SND_BUF (2*TCP_MSS)
#define TCP_WND
sb80 wrote:
have you an example code for me to realize this routing function?
No, I'm sorry there is no extended routing code available, and I can't
write it for you.
should I define in the the opt.h something like this
Yes, the definition looks good.
and in ip.c
No, place the
vincent cui wrote:
Is it possible that creating socket in RAW API call back functions ?
I tried it and got fail result
I guess it should be possible, but mixing APIs is generally not intended
from the design (i.e. not guaranteed to work).
Simon
Marco Jakobs wrote:
Wireshark gives this output:
Has anyone on this list ever heard that we favour pcap files over short
text cutouts? ;-)
55 13:40:56.348413192.168.4.11 192.168.0.221 TCP 60
49153 14713 [SYN] Seq=6509 Win=2048 Len=0 MSS=1024
56 13:40:56.348517
Mark Lakata wrote:
I think I've gotten closer to the problem. It seems that the size of
the segments that are queued up to be sent by tcp_output are larger
than the 'wnd' size (which is pcb-snd_wnd in this case), and thus
they don't get sent. I'm not sure how this could have happened.
sb80 wrote:
Is it possible to realize a multipath routing in the lwip
You can define LWIP_HOOK_IP4_ROUTE(dest) to a function which takes the
destination IPv4 address and returns the netif to be used, but again,
this is only supported in newer versions of lwIP (I think from 1.4.0 on).
Do
l...@piwos.de wrote:
i just noticed a problem with the GCC compiler for ARM, in api.h there
is the line:
#define netconn_write(conn, dataptr, size, apiflags) \
netconn_write_partly(conn, dataptr, size, apiflags, NULL)
which will cause an error (netconn_write will not be found
sb80 wrote:
Now my problem:
If i ping the IP 192.168.10.40 on eth1, no ARP, to get the MAC from the
gateway, appears on eth1, but on eth0 a ARP appears with the message who
has 192.168.0.1? Tell 192.168.0.10
If eth0 have no defaultgateway (0.0.0.0) and I make the same ping on eth1
(like above),
Grant Erickson wrote:
I've an integration of LwIP STABLE-1_4_1 into a project and have IPv4 working,
via DHCP, reliably and stably. However, I am now moving along in attempting to
enable IPv6 support, which I've done with:
#define LWIP_IPV6 1
That seems odd:
Tom Sawyer wrote:
I have read about the porting to bare system on lwip wiki but still
have many questions?
1.Is it a must to compile and link the app object and lwip with NO_SYS=1 ?
I'm not sure I understand your question correctly, but all code using
lwIP must be compiled with the same
mario.gru...@space.unibe.ch wrote
I have a question regarding accepting client PCBs on a listening PCB:
Is it by design that the stack aborts an already connected PCB, if it fails to
allocate a free TCP PCB from the memory pools to handle pending connection
requests?
Yes, that's by design.
Ivan Delamer wrote:
If you download the GIT HEAD code you will find IPv6 support there. I have
been using it for a couple years now and is working well for me.
I think if it's getting stable, we might want to release some kind of
pre-1.5.0 so that it's more publicly visible...
Simon
Conover John wrote:
Does anyone know of examples that have left the original lwip
directory tree in place and simply referenced
it in a make file?
The unix port in contrib does exactly that.
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
Krzysztof Wesołowski wrote:
I am also seeing some bad checksum (with bad value, not simply
offloaded 0x).
That's perfectly normal for checksum offloading (as long as the packets
origin from the computer running wireshark): it's simply the old
contents of that memory, windows doesn't need
Sujith K V wrote:
We are working on lwIP 1.4.0.
When we try to access the embedded webpage using internet explorer, it
always works. But when I try the same with Google Chrome, it needs a
refresh. With FireFox, it works most of the times, but rarely you need
to refresh.
Also, during all
Mason wrote:
IMO, autoIP is the answer to a different question. Namely, one
wants automatic configuration, but without a DHCP server. In my
case, there's a pre-existing network, and all I want is to
detect a misconfiguration (human error) to be able to warn the
user that the address he chose is
Sylvain Rochet wrote:
I still have to find a way to test PPPoS, which
require a SIO somewhere, maybe I will do a unix SIO port, this seems
easier than using a takes-minutes-to-flash-and-hard-to-debug uC.
I tested it with the Win32 port from contrib. There is (by now) a
working SIO port
Sylvain Rochet wrote:
PPPd 2.4.x is at least used in all major Linux distributions, and
benefits from patchs from them. For example, there are 37 patchs for
PPPd into Debian, and some of them fixes bugs.
That's a good thing to know.
I guess this is because
PPPd upstream does not answer. The
Sylvain Rochet wrote:
Probably a dumb question, but how can we fetch the lwIP contrib Git ?
Not that dumb: unfortunately, the link to the contrib rep vanished from
the website when we moved from CVS to git. Also, we haven't found a
volunteer to update the landing site on savannah to provide
Sylvain Rochet wrote:
In fsm_rtermreq(), if f-state equals LS_OPENED, which is the Connection
terminated by peer condition, we send a Termination Ack, which seems logical.
But, in this case, we call TIMEOUT(fsm_timeout, ...), but we don't send
any request at this time, what are we waiting for
Wilson, Dave (Stellaris S/W) wrote:
Sorry about that!
No problem, I just wanted to know which tool vincent was talking about.
Seems like it's my turn to fix the bug now :-/
I assumed Vincent was talking about a similar tool I wrote for
StellarisWare when I wanted to add some features to
vincent cui wrote:
I use makefsdata.exe to generate fsdata.c attached file to setup web
server .
As my web page is complex and has more level directory, the fsdata.c
is large.
When I compile it in MDK, it complains the following error.
It seems that makefsdata.exe doesn't support multi
Andrew Xiang wrote:
I want to send a large http packet. 200KB length. But I can only work
with a 4KB buffer to dynamically generate the web page. I tried
several ways and all of them did not work. Seems tcp_write() function
is doing some queueing internally and I don't understand its logic.
Kieran Mansley wrote:
The code extract looks sensible, so I'm not sure what's going wrong. Can you
describe what happens, and what you expect it to do?
I think the code looks sensible because it's part of
httpserver_raw/httpd.c from contrib. That would mean the current server
doesn't allow
Marco Jakobs wrote:
updating a project from LwIP 1.3.2 to 1.4.0 without the use of PPP did a
minor increase of the used RAM of a few hundret bytes, which is no
problem on my limited microcontroller environment.
But a project which is using PPP (PPPoS) with LwIP did a jump up of
around 3kByte
Kieran Mansley wrote:
On 1 May 2012, at 21:10, Bill Auerbach wrote:
Is it acceptable or incorrect to call tcp_recved from the receive callback even
if the pbuf isn’t freed? I am buffering pbufs in the callback until I have
enough to process what has come in. This buffering could be in the
Andrew Xiang wrote:
Do you know file size in advance? In my case, I don't.
I had to use TCP_WRITE_FLAG_COPY to make it work.
That would be perfectly valid. The httpd server as it is now can only
use no-copy if file contents don't change. If they may change before all
retransmissions are
Marco Jakobs wrote:
this looks like socket interface ... but i'm using NETCONN ...
Ehrm, that certainly does look like lwIP's raw API for udp pcbs, not
sockets! Nevertheless, you're correct that it's another API than what
you are trying to use...
Could you please file a bug for this to
Marco Jakobs wrote:
Hi Simon,
i'm using Rowley CrossStudio for ARM,
OK, I don't have a MAP parser for that, anyway...
but i've found a new buffer which
consumes most of the increased memory:
/** RX buffer size: this may be configured smaller! */
#ifndef PPPOS_RX_BUFSIZE
#define
Krzysztof Wesołowski wrote:
Can I make such non blocking read with already established connection?
Yes, call netconn_set_nonblocking(conn, 1) to set the connection
non-blocking, call netconn_read() and call netconn_set_nonblocking(conn,
0) afterwards to make the connection blocking again.
Martin Osterloh wrote:
My NIC driver provides an interrupt function that is called every time
a frame is received.
My intuition tells me that I have to allocate a pbuf now (of the
frame's length).
But how do i actually fill in the blanks in the pbufs (in case there
is a chain).
Basically,
Sirjee Rooplall wrote:
Under freeRTOS I have created 3 Tasks, each of the Tasks, bind and
listen for a connection on port 1234.
That's not a problem in netconn_accept(): netconn_bind() will have
returned an error before, as only one netconn (or pcb or socket, that
doesn't depend on the API
Martin Osterloh wrote:
I see, indeed a misunderstanding. I thought I could put lwip into a
library and then just call it as needed without having the hassle of
including headers.
Now, how should I organize my project in order to compile a small test
program that is essentially able to create
Andrey Skladchikov wrote:
Hello. I try to send an data array throw the UDP in lwip. When data is
ready, i create a pbuf and link pbuf-payload to my dataarray.
Next, i send it.
Receiver is C# .NET udp datagram socket. Im receiving data using
socket.ReceiveFrom().
So. If i send more then 1470
Mason wrote:
You should check the MSS option in the SYN packet sent to the Google server.
I did! (cf. trace) lwip advertizes a 536-byte MSS.
OK, then I don't know why - good that you filed a bug: I haven't
observed this up to now, but then again, our systems use an MSS of 536
(as a result
Kieran Mansley wrote:
On 20 Mar 2012, at 09:53, Mason wrote:
Looking at sockets.c, the relevant code is:
#ifdef ERRNO
#ifndef set_errno
#define set_errno(err) errno = (err)
#endif
#else /* ERRNO */
#define set_errno(err)
#endif /* ERRNO */
I suspect that it might be something relevant to
trex7 wrote:
When I call tcp_close() lwip sends fin and the servers ack it. But the
server never sends fin and continues sending data.
TCP provides full duplex connections: the fact that you close your side
of the connection doesn't necessarily mean the server also has to close
the
Åke Forslund wrote:
I see my mistake there, however even with code that is at least theoretically
sane I can't establish a connection. lwip_accept() always returns EWOULDBLOCK
for me.
from socket debug:
lwip_accept(0)...
lwip_accept(0): returning EWOULDBLOCK
[Repeats forever]
putty reports
Paul Archer wrote:
I am now trying to setup a raw UDP socket that will accept audio data
from a queue and send it out over UDP.
I have the receive side working well with raw sockets and can
correctly receive and hand the data off to the DAC.
Just for clarity: I'm assuming you mean using a raw
Mason wrote:
Krzysztof Wesołowski wrote:
[..]
Assumes thatethhdr-dest is 32bit aligned, which is true only for
ETH_PAD_SIZE==0.
[..]
In principle, you're right. If one defines ETH_PAD_SIZE to 2
to align the IP header to 32 bits, then the first field of the
Ethernet header (MAC dest) cannot be
Kieran Mansley wrote:
On 5 Mar 2012, at 09:23,nkarako...@gsamaras.gr nkarako...@gsamaras.gr
wrote:
Afterwards it iterates the list and the weird thing is that it doesn’t find em
interface. Then netif –next should be 0x0 but is 0xfff. This makes me
think of some overflow or stack
Bill Auerbach wrote:
-Original Message-
So, why don't you just use your received pbuf(s) directly in your audio
function ?
This way:
- the size of your buffer (made of pbufs) is the size of your TCP
window
- the server cannot send more
These 2 statements are true for calling
Robert wrote:
I think that you should buffer the pbufs, and NOT call tcp_recved()
until you consume a pbuf in your audio task.
That's what I would do. However, your buffer has to be big enough to
hold at least the complete initial receive window's size of data.
Nice idea but the function
mat henshall wrote:
I think you will also want to return ERR_MEM from your callback, if I
understand the code correctly, the stack will buffer the data for you
and then will try again on the next fasttmr will try delivering the
data again to your application.
This way, when your circular
Mason wrote:
I ported lwip 1.4.0 to my platform, and the port builds
with no errors.
When I tried the 1.4.1 branch, the port fails to build:
src/core/init.c:269:4:
error: #error lwip_sanity_check: WARNING: TCP_WND is larger than space
provided by PBUF_POOL_SIZE * (PBUF_POOL_BUFSIZE - protocol
Zayaz Volk wrote:
I am wondering, if there is a forecast for introducing fragmented udp
support ?
IPv4 fragmentation and reassembly is already supported (since I don't
know when). What are you missing?
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
Mason wrote:
Can you explain why the pbuf struct and the payload buffer
need to be contiguous? What problems are solved by having
the struct and the buffer stored contiguously?
When passing the packet through the stack, the payload pointer in the
pbuf is moved back and forth (e.g. to point at
Please, write mails to the list, not to private addresses. Other people
might want to read this too. Plus I can't see why I'm on CC.
Simon
Guillaume Fortain wrote:
Dear Mister Tölke,
Thank you for your comprehensive reply.
The minimum Maximal Transferable Unit is 1280 octets. That means
Alexander Petrov wrote:
After the repository was moved to Git I'm unable to find where is the
Contrib folder.
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lwip/lwip-contrib.git
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
r...@bel.co.in wrote:
i m using LWIP in ARM9 controller, i need code to ping another lwip stack,
could you help me out.
There's a ping example in the apps folder in contrib.
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
Mason wrote:
Have you and Kieran made any progress on bug #25882? :-)
(Maybe the Status field should be changed to In Progress.)
No, I haven't made any progress on this, yet, sorry :-(
I see that bug #35435 has also been targeted for 1.4.1
http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?35435
Mason wrote:
I'm using OS21 (STMicro) and I've decided to use a mutex.
Is it correct that, in my case, I can ignore the sys_prot_t
arguments?
Yes, mapping sys_arch_protect/unprotect to mutec_lock/unlock is correct.
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing
N.Karakotas wrote:
Im trying to receive an image from an IP camera but im having a
problem receiving data. I successfully connect and access the camera
and I then try to get the data.
I receive the header response such as:
[..]
All I receive is 256 bytes of data and once the loop executes
*Please* respond to the list, not to my private address!
Simon
Original-Nachricht
Betreff:Re: [lwip-users] netconn_recv partial data
Datum: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:25:10 +0200
Von:N.Karakotas nkarako...@myweather.gr
An: goldsi...@gmx.de
Hi,
It escapes the loop
N.Karakotas wrote:
All I receive is 256 bytes of data and once the loop executes again it
has no data. Below is the code:
netconn_recv() returns the data in chunks as received on the wire and
TCP splits send data into multiple packets. Call netconn_recv() again if
the data you want isn't all
ganezu wrote:
I tried to find
lwip source code for a dns server and i didn t found it..I really need this
for my project implementing a dns server on blackfin bf537 with.It is an
example with dns client in analog devices implemented with lwip and I
believe that i must use lwip;)...
I still
Kieran Mansley wrote:
It's part of the sockets API so there isn't a supported way to set it via the
raw API, but you can probably get what you want by doing
pcb-so_options |= SOF_KEEPALIVE;
In general modifying pcb fields directly is discouraged but in this case there
isn't an easy
narke wrote:
After checking the 1.4.0 source code, I found it seems that doing any
operation on a pcb in its tcp_err callback function is not safe.
Since when lwip was invoking the error callbackup, the pcb either had
been freed or will being freed shortly.
In particularly, can someone confirm
vincent cui wrote:
Using LWIP_DHCP_AUTOIP_COOP, it still works when cable is unplugged into ,
right ?
I'm afraid I don't understand. What do you mean by 'it still works'?
What do you expect to work how?
Simon
___
lwip-users mailing list
vincent cui wrote:
[..] I must figure it out that the exact MIB file refer to lwIP_prvmib.c.
I'm afraid I can't really help you there: I haven't ever really use
private mibs with the snmp agent. Also, Christiaan didn't add the MIB
file to the private mib example when he added it.
Simon
Fisher, John wrote:
Can lwip be used with two network interfaces simultaneously, say
Ethernet and PPP?
Yes, just add more than one netif. Netifs have to be on a different IPv4
subnet, though.
Can it then be configured to route between them?
Normal routing is activated by setting
601 - 700 of 1087 matches
Mail list logo
