Hi Simon Simon Kallweit wrote:
> John Dallaway schrieb: >> Hi Simon >> >> Simon Kallweit wrote: >> >>> Ok, I merged the 1.3.2 stable code and did a few quick tests (the >>> changes are not huge). The tarball is at >>> http://download.westlicht.ch/lwip-20100122.tar.gz >>> >> >> Some initial comments based mainly on diffs against the upstream lwIP >> 1.3.2 sources and the eCos lwIP 1.1.1 port: >> >> a) On the whole, the upstream sources have very little modification. >> That's good news for future updates. Is it strictly necessary to move >> the include/ipv4/ headers into include/ as part of the eCos port? This >> seems like unnecessary effort and will also make it more difficult to >> support IPv6 in the future. > > I'll see if we can change that. Looking at this in more detail, it appears that the only way to preserve the upstream directory layout would be to add "-I$(PREFIX)/include/ipv4" to CYGBLD_GLOBAL_CFLAGS. Otherwise, other eCos packages will not find the IPv4-specific headers when #including netif.h (for example). Perhaps it is better to move the IPv4 header files as you have done already. We can think again for a future lwIP import if the IPv6 support moves beyond "experimental" status. >> c) There are a lot of small changes under src/netif/ppp/ including >> function renaming. I understand that you have your own PPP requirements >> to consider but I think we should stick closer to the master sources for >> the CVS check-in. Unless your changes have already been accepted >> upstream? > > Well, yesterday night I have checked the lwip HEAD, and it looks like > there has been lots of work done in the ppp departement. It now supports > polling and multi-threaded support out of the box. So it might be > considerable to directly use the current HEAD for inclusion into eCos > and keep it updated with the lwip repository until we hit the next > stable release. Backporting the ppp changes to the 1.3.2 codebase is a > bit troublesome as the internal timeout framework has changed a bit and > we would have to backport this too. I would pledge for the use of the > 1.4.0 development tree. What do you think about this? We always seem to be waiting for the next version of lwIP. :-) At this stage, I would favour an initial check-in of something close to lwIP 1.3.2 followed by an update of the PPP code from the lwIP HEAD as time permits. John Dallaway
