kity hong wrote:
> Hi,Jan
> 
> In the source codes of ut_sock_init (void) :you can see this sequence :
> 1-->   struct rtnet_callback   callback  = {cb_recv, NULL};
> 
>    /* create rt-socket */
> 2-->   sock = socket_rt(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
> 
>    /* extend the socket pool */
> 3-->   ret = ioctl_rt(sock, RTNET_RTIOC_EXTPOOL, &add_rtskbs);
> 
>    /* bind the rt-socket to a port */
> 4-->memset(&local_addr, 0, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in));
>    local_addr.sin_family = AF_INET;
>    local_addr.sin_port = htons(PORT);
>    local_addr.sin_addr.s_addr = INADDR_ANY;
>    ret = bind_rt(sock, (struct sockaddr *)&local_addr, sizeof(struct
> sockaddr_in));
> 
>    /* set destination address */
>    memset(&dest_addr, 0, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in));
>    dest_addr.sin_family = AF_INET;
>    dest_addr.sin_port = htons(PORT);
>    dest_addr.sin_addr.s_addr = dest_ip;
> 
>        /* set up callback handler */
> 5-->   ioctl_rt(sock, RTNET_RTIOC_CALLBACK, &callback);
> 
> 
> 
> it is the example from RTNET 0.7.0,  does this implemetation register
> the reception callback after binding to the port?  Is it a wrong
> order?
> this source codes applied in the slave. If it is wrong, what is the
> correct sequence of it?

1-2-3-5-4

Jan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
RTnet-users mailing list
RTnet-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rtnet-users

Reply via email to