>Yes in my port it's enabled. Should I disable it? It can be useful. Simon just fix it in current CVS HEAD, but since you use lwip 1.1.0, I think you could have the problem
>I'm thinking if I should remove this or not... That's what we do now (There is an option for that). But in fact, even ARP packets can cause the problem. That's why, in current code, all packets are process in a "core protection" context (when you use tcpip.c). >I've read one of your posts about this issue on the list. ( December 2006, I >guess). When do you think this will cause problems to me? For example, if I >disable etharp_ip_input before calling tcp_output and re-enable it after >tcp_sent, is it an enough protection? I really don't care answering arp >requests for a short period of time as long as it is not a very very wrong >move. I don't know how is your application design, but saying you have two contexts: one for your RX (your driver), and one for your application which send the data. If your application send data, and there is a switch context (note that sys_arch_protect only protect small parts of the code, like allocation, etc..), and you start to process any input packet, you can corrupt the core. But how do the "right" protection is dependant of your driver, your port, and your application. But even with all that, what it is really strange, is that all your boards hang at the same time... Do you have provide a capture file ? ==================================== Frédéric BERNON HYMATOM SA Chef de projet informatique Microsoft Certified Professional Tél. : +33 (0)4-67-87-61-10 Fax. : +33 (0)4-67-70-85-44 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site : http://www.hymatom.fr ==================================== P Avant d'imprimer, penser à l'environnement -----Message d'origine----- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Caglar Akyuz Envoyé : jeudi 19 juillet 2007 18:04 À : Mailing list for lwIP users Objet : Re: RE : [lwip-users] Broadcast packets breaking my network traffic Frédéric BERNON wrote: > Perhaps some ideas: > > - Windows talk "everywhere", understand : it send lot of packets for > ARP, uPnp, Netbios, etc... More than Linux on this point. > - If you use a hub, and not a switch, you can have "lot" of collisions on the > network. What is the result on a switch? > - Do you use ARP_QUEUEING? There was a problem with this option in previous > releases. Yes in my port it's enabled. Should I disable it? > - Does your ethernet driver call directly etharp_ip_input on receive? > This could cause problems inside ARP table (concurrent access not > protected), and "load" your target if you receive lot of packets... > Actually yes it is. However, I tried disabling it in my port while I'm in the process of transmitting. I have not seen any enhancement. I'm thinking if I should remove this or not... I've read one of your posts about this issue on the list. ( December 2006, I guess). When do you think this will cause problems to me? For example, if I disable etharp_ip_input before calling tcp_output and re-enable it after tcp_sent, is it an enough protection? I really don't care answering arp requests for a short period of time as long as it is not a very very wrong move. Caglar _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:BERNON;Frédéric;;M. FN:Frédéric BERNON ORG:HYMATOM SA;Recherche et Développement TITLE:Chef de projet informatique TEL;WORK;VOICE:04-67-87-61-10 TEL;WORK;FAX:04-67-70-85-44 ADR;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;23;Zone Industrielle=0D=0A175 rue de Massacan;VENDARGUES;;34740;FRANCE; LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:23=0D=0AZone Industrielle=0D=0A175 rue de Massacan=0D=0AVENDARGUES 34740=0D= =0AFrance URL;WORK:http://www.hymatom.fr ROLE:Chef de projet informatique EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:20020404T083210Z END:VCARD
_______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
