Hi Simon and all Simon Kallweit wrote:
> John Dallaway schrieb: > >> Having reviewed the lwIP ChangeLog, I think it makes sense to simply >> replace the older lwIP port in the eCos CVS trunk (tagging the >> repository before the commit). There are known issues with lwIP PPP >> which need to be addressed upstream. In the meantime, eCos users wishing >> to work with lwIP PPP should be better off hacking on the lwIP 1.3.1 >> stack where necessary rather than using the older port. > > I think this is the way to go. There is already some hacking on PPP in > my port, which could lead to some confusion, as it is not identical to > the lwIP codebase. Also it does only work in a polled environment like > mine, so it might not be much use of the broad community. I don't know > how we should proceed with this? Perhaps it would be preferable to publish your PPP-related changes as a patch for the time being and keep the CVS sources as close to the master lwIP code as possible. >> What is the status of your testing of your lwIP 1.3.x port now? Are you >> comfortable that it is stable under heavy CPU and network loads? > > Well, the tests I have been doing were successful. But I could only test > on the synthetic target as my hardware lacks ethernet support. Some > broader testing on real hardware would be great. I can certainly test on an x86 PC target. I think Sergei Gavrikov has also been experimenting with your port (probably on ARM). Are there any volunteers to perform a basic sanity check of the eCos port on a big-endian target? > I'll merge the latest changes from the lwip 1.3.1 release and make a new > release for review and testing. Great. Thank you John Dallaway
