On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 09:35 -0500, Bill Auerbach wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Kieran Mansley > > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:49 AM > > To: Mailing list for lwIP users > > Subject: Re: [lwip-users] Dropping existing TCP connections to service new > > ones > > > > On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:03 -0800, Art R. wrote: > > > Is this a bug? Should the code read "if (pcb->prio < prio && ..." (less > > > than instead of less or equal)? > > > > Sounds to me like that would be more sensible, but I've not looked into > > it in any detail. Feel free to file a bug if you'd like this changed. > > This would break existing programs that use TCP_MAX_PRIO, since these would > be killed in current lwIP versions but won't be in future versions with this > < instead of <= change.
Are there programs that rely on this? > Maybe we want: > > #define TCP_NO_KILL_PRIO (TCP_MAX_PRIO+1) > > And recommend using TCP_NO_KILL_PRIO for pcbs that cannot be killed due to > inactivity. It would certainly make sense to have a way to say "don't kill this connection", but that leaves the question open of what to do if all the connections have TCP_MAX_PRIO and it wants to create another one. Kieran _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
