jblackarty <[email protected]> wrote: > The only thing remained in a shadow is combination MEM_USE_POOLS + > MEMP_USE_CUSTOM_POOLS. As I understand MEMP_USE_CUSTOM_POOLS have only > one exclusive dependency on MEM_USE_POOLS. Also you said directly that > user have to enable second one if enables first one. Why not remove > this redundant option ? They have equal meaning. Or maybe it's > possible to have MEMP_USE_CUSTOM_POOLS enabled without MEM_USE_POOLS ?
Exactly. For example, your port can create custom pools to put semaphores or mboxes in it and allocate from that pool when calling sys_sem_new(). > This married couple has another issue I asked about in thread "System > objects management (semaphores, mailboxes, mutexes, threads, etc.): pool size > ?" > To use MEMP pool efficiently in sys_arch I need to know a kind of mailbox > in > sys_mbox_new() rather then size. I cannot reverse-determine kind from > size, because sizes are not different generally. At the same time, > pool-based mem_malloc won't help in case when mailbox itself allocated > in RTOS memory and RTOS return just pointer (sys_mbox_t) of fixed > size. In such a way, I have to implement own independed pool mechanism > included > in port for that RTOS. I don't think I have thought that through fully, but mboxes are only created in 5 different sizes (at maximum), so it shouldn't be too hard to switch over mbox size to know the pool to allocate from? Simon -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
