Just sending a post a second time is normally not a way to attract much attention...
"Hervé GARAT : Audemat" wrote: > > Kieran said: > >No, that's wrong. p->len refers to the length of each individual pbuf. > >We've added another pbuf to the chain, but not changed the length of > >each pbuf. Because the chain is longer, we increment the length of > >p->tot_len, but not the length of p->len. > > But in the inet_chksum_pseudo function,the len used to make checksum is > p->len and not p->tot_len. However the message sent is long as p->tot_len, > therefore the TCP checksum is Incorrect!! > > All the other change that I made(queuelen-- > ;pbuf_free(p->queuelen);...)are made to have a valid checksum if LWIP do a > concatenation. As Kieran also said, the pbuf_free() is *wrong*, too. > > What's the best way to solve my problem? To be able to tell you that I would have to get your problem first. In my software, the same code path is executed and there is no error. Simon -- DSL-Preisknaller: DSL Komplettpakete von GMX schon für 16,99 Euro mtl.!* Hier klicken: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
