Rishi Khan wrote:
So, if you call NETIF_FLAG_ETHARP, they you should leave the header
alone, but if >> you don't call NETIF_FLAG_ETHARP, you should leave
it there. Doesn't that seem weird? Why should the TCP/IP stack
handle ARP? This is inherently an ethernet problem.
Just for better understanding, the handling of ARP packets has
changed in 1.3.0:
Previously they were indeed handled by the 'ethernetif' code. The
problem was >that this way, the ARP table wasn't protected against
concurrent access (from >receive thread an tcpip_thread - when
sending). This was solved by letting the >tcpip_thread handle ARP
packets, which is the reason why ethernet netifs have >to pass the
complete packet, not only the IP part.
Simon
Leon Woestenberg had this suggestion in 2006: [RFC] Remove calls to
etharp_ip_input().
(http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/lwip-devel/2006-04/msg00012.html)
Is there a problem with concurrent writes to the ARP table in the
approach he outlined?
Steinar
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
