Per Klint wrote:
I'd rather not change the lwip stack code. But perhaps it is possible
to replace all calls to sys_mbox_trypost with sys_mbox_post instead?
Why would you need that?
To avoid to lose any messages!
But if it needs to work from ISR it's ofcourse not an option to do that.
And let
11 nov 2011 kl. 18:55 skrev Simon Goldschmidt :
> Per Klint wrote:
>
>> So my question is what will happen to those messages? Will they be
>> lost forever or will the lwip-stack retry again later?
>
> Yes, they will be lost, that's the intention. You have to design the mbox
> sizes in a way th
Per Klint wrote:
> So my question is what will happen to those messages? Will they be
> lost forever or will the lwip-stack retry again later?
Yes, they will be lost, that's the intention. You have to design the mbox sizes
in a way that thins is OK for your application.
> I'd rather not change
Hi again and thanks for your answer Iwan!
>> I have a question regarding the mbox:es.
>> We have very short on memory in our system, so we want to have
>> the queue length in the mbox set as low as possible.
>> This however results that we sometimes gets mbox errors due to
>> that the mbox queue i
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Per Klint wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have a question regarding the mbox:es.
> We have very short on memory in our system, so we want to have the queue
> length in the mbox set as low as possible.
> This however results that we sometimes gets mbox errors due to that the mbox
Hi!
I have a question regarding the mbox:es.
We have very short on memory in our system, so we want to have the queue
length in the mbox set as low as possible.
This however results that we sometimes gets mbox errors due to that the
mbox queue is full.
So my question is what happens when the mbox
