I am having trouble with LWIP/freertos with multithreading.. Somehow, I have two netconnections. One is a webservice listenning and the other one is a tcp client that connects to a remote chatserver. For somehow, when reading the netconnection in the tcp client task, at some occassions, I receive netbuf that suppose to belong to the webservice task. The netbuf that i recieve were just stand mozilla httpd ascii request on port 80. Am i doing something wrong, should i just receive packets from the tcp client connection? thank you.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Kieran Mansley<[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 16:19 +0200, Alexander Heidt wrote: >> Hello! >> >> I am getting familiar with lwIP right now, on a STM32-Microcontroller. >> Right now I have the lwIP running in a single thread, works fine. I even >> built a veeeery simple http-server using the raw-api. >> Now I am trying to use lwIP with FreeRTOS. My question: As it is stated >> in the wiki, only ONE application thread using the lwIP-api is >> permitted. In my application I would like to 1. have the http-server >> running to serve a config-website and 2. connect to a server to upload >> some data. As I am not familiar with the lwIP-api yet: Is this possible >> via the api in one single task? Or is it possible, to leave the >> http-server I have already as it is (totally done via callbacks), and >> just use the api to do the data-uploading in my application task? > > I'm not quite sure - I'd have to think carefully about what you're > proposing and what lwIP supports, which I don't quite have time for at > the moment, but there should be a way to do what you need. > >> And one another question regarding PPP: Afaik now PPP needs a >> multithreaded environment, cause the PPP-daemon runs in its own thread. >> But what is the status of the PPP-part of lwIP?? Is it still very buggy, >> or is there somebody having had a good experience with it?? Just to >> know, if it is worth, trying to use it, or not! > > There is no active developer for PPP, so bugs aren't really getting > fixed at the rate I would like, but people use it and it seems to work > well enough for at least some of them, so I would say give it a go and > see. If you're able to improve it, then fixes are very welcome. > > Kieran > > > > _______________________________________________ > lwip-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users > _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
