the tcpip_init function starts up all the required timers (which happens in tcpip_thread startup). You should not be starting them 'manually'. The timeout handlers usually have a call to sys_timeout that set's itself as the timeout handler, which essentially sets up a periodic timer.
On Jan 14, 2008 12:18 AM, Muhamad Ikhwan Ismail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I got some qs on timer functions on lwip, read some thread on it > previously but it doesnt really answer my qs. > I ll try to generalize this so that any future user can use this thread > for the same problem. > Im using lwip 1.2 porting it on a SMX OS on PowerPC MPC852T. Just wanna > make sure I am right before i run some multithreading test. > > 1. The are 2 timers for the whole stack, which are the arptimer and the > tcp timer am I right ? > > 2. The arptimer is initialized in ethernetif_init through this piece of > code : > sys_timeout(ARP_TMR_INTERVAL, arp_timer, NULL); > which then will be assign a struct timeout to the tcpip thread's timeout > (since I call it from the tcpip thread initialization) linked list and will > be checked and updated each time I wait on semaphore or fetch a message. > Hence I dont have to call the arptimer(). > Am I correct so far ? > > 3. My biggest problem is the tcp_timer. It is called by the > tcpip_tcp_timer by tcpip API. But no other function calls the > tcpip_tcp_timer > hence I guess I need to call it myself ? If I do have to call it myself, I > guess there are 2 ways. One is I call it before I wait for semaphore after > tcpip_thread finishes the job > it got with the message it fetched. Or call another thread to call > tcpip_tcp_timer which is literally bad cause the stack itself is not > multithreading safe, isnt it? > If anyone has done something like this and has tips where I can use the > timer safely, I'd appreciate any tips. > > 4.I am writing a telnet server program which have 2 task, both using the > same socket for transmit and receive. This is possible if i do a critical > section protection each time > the socket does receive or send, preventing simultaneous access on the > socket, am I right ? > > I am thankful for any answers you could provide me. > > Greetings, > Ikhwan > > > > > ------------------------------ > Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. Start > sharing!<http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008> > > _______________________________________________ > lwip-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users > -- Thomas Taranowski Expert embedded software design/contracting [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove the n0sp4m)
_______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
