Re: [lwip-users] LLDP Implementation for lwIP
Hi Amit, of course you must make up for a licence before sharing anything. Personally, I'm not sure I would contribute to anything not compatible to the lwip licence though. Simon Gesendet mit AquaMail für Android http://www.aqua-mail.com Am 19. August 2016 4:28:55 nachm. schrieb Amit Ashara: Hello Simon The lwIP license would not be touched. The only change will be that the lldp.c and lldp.h files may have copyright information w.r.t the organization I work for (*and I am clarifying with the legal team). Regards Amit On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: Amit Ashara wrote: > I wanted to however check before I do that is that is there a contributor license > agreement/contributors agreement for lwIP that I need to be aware of? lwIP's license is available nearly everywhere (website, sources, etc.). What I don't get is: where would the lwIP license be touched if you write an LLDP stack? Simon ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users -- ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
[lwip-users] tcp_echo sample for lpc17xx (LPCopen 2.10)
Hi all, I'm currently trying out some lwip demo's for my LPC1788 hardware. In the LPCopen 2.10 package there is some demo application (tcp echo) using lwip 1.4.1 One using raw TCP/IP standaolone (No RTOS) and one using Netconn API in FreeRTOS. I have written a simple TCP client test app in c#. It connects to the IP number, sends a package in 128 byte chunks. The lwip demo returnes every received bytes. The test application measure the roundtrip time (Write to read). I'm using 500 bytes data for test. The lwip RAW TCP demo runs fine. Ok performance and round trip times Now the same test on the lwip Netconn FreeRTOS demo har poor performance. Some roundtrip time takes about ~300 ms. (Nagle is disabled in the lwip demo and in the test application). When I reduce the returned data, from the TCP echo demo, to be fixed at 10 bytes no roundtrip of 300 ms occure. Seems the netconn_write can take it times if the stack is busy? Also, after a while the lwip asserts with ".../..." ?? My question. Is it the lwip Netconn FreeRTOs demo poorly made? Is it the netconn API that has problem? Any experience with freeRtos, lwip and netconn? thanks, Thomas -- View this message in context: http://lwip.100.n7.nabble.com/tcp-echo-sample-for-lpc17xx-LPCopen-2-10-tp27189.html Sent from the lwip-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Re: [lwip-users] LLDP Implementation for lwIP
Amit Ashara wrote: > I wanted to however check before I do that is that is there a contributor > license > agreement/contributors agreement for lwIP that I need to be aware of? lwIP's license is available nearly everywhere (website, sources, etc.). What I don't get is: where would the lwIP license be touched if you write an LLDP stack? Simon ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Re: [lwip-users] LLDP Implementation for lwIP
Hello Simon OK, I will set it up on git. I wanted to however check before I do that is that is there a contributor license agreement/contributors agreement for lwIP that I need to be aware of? Regards Amit ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Re: [lwip-users] 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 or 2.0.0
Sergio R. Caprile wrote: > Oh, the vendor had put that into ip_addr.h > Heavily modified... even more than I thought. Did you check the RTOS SDK? It seems the lwIP version included there is much more recent (although quite old, they're still using ipX_addr_t) and not as heavily modified. Simon ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Re: [lwip-users] 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 or 2.0.0
Sergio R. Caprile wrote: >>> 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 required the addition of the ip_info structure, which had >> That's not an lwIP structure: I've never heard of that name. > Oh, the vendor had put that into ip_addr.h > Heavily modified... even more than I thought. Right. Now that I found the sources they provide, I'm not sure what you're trying to do is a good idea, unless you have plenty of time :-) On the other hand, you could properly fix their port to use "vanilla" lwIP plus the appropriate porting mechanisms and send it back to them? ;-) BTW: I didn't quite get if all those attributes to functions/variables are really required or if it's just a kind of optimization that is rather optional... Simon ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Re: [lwip-users] 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 or 2.0.0
1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 required the addition of the ip_info structure, which had That's not an lwIP structure: I've never heard of that name. Oh, the vendor had put that into ip_addr.h Heavily modified... even more than I thought. ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Re: [lwip-users] LLDP Implementation for lwIP
Amit Ashara wrote: > I have the updated files for lldp transmit function. How do I put it up for > review? What about setting up a repository somewhere 8e.g. github?) and posting a link here? As i said at the beginning, I'd be interested to see an lldp implementation. However, lwIP is an *IP* stack, so I'm not (yet?) convinced the lwIP git repository is the right place for it. That being said, I didn't get your descriptions about the code, so putting it somewhere for review might really be the best idea to proceed. Simon ___ lwip-users mailing list lwip-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users