Yes, they are same ...
I am confused that nobody meet this kind of problem
Vincent Cui
Firmware Engineer Leader
Mobile: +8613482482211
Tel: +86 21 34612525x6104
Fax: +86 21 34619770
E-Mail: vincent@enlogic.com
Shanghai EnLogic Electric Technology Co., Ltd.
Address: 1104-1106, Building A, No.3
vincent cui wrote:
> I use the following code to receive file from client tool, the receive
> speed will be up to down after send 3 times .
> Is it LWIP bug ?
How in the world is this question related to the summary of your post??? Isn't
that the same question you asked in your other post ("rece
Hi :
I use latest LWIP1.4.x from git repo, and found that the problem of receive
speed down after sending file 3 times.
My code is pasted as following .
My system is FreeRTOS + lwip, I think it may be lwip bug
static void close_conn(struct tcp_pcb *pcb)
{
tcp_arg(pcb, NULL);
tcp_sen
Hi simon:
I use the following code to receive file from client tool, the receive speed
will be up to down after send 3 times .
Is it LWIP bug ?
static err_t server_recv(void *arg, struct tcp_pcb *pcb, struct pbuf *p, err_t
err)
{
if (err == ERR_OK && p != NULL)
{
vincent cui wrote:
> I had port latest lwip1.4.0 to my system, it works well . but I found some
> additional api about mutex are defined in 1.4.0
>
> I want to know that are they necessary ?
No, as it says in sys.h: "Define LWIP_COMPAT_MUTEX if the port has no mutexes
and binary semaphores shou
All:
I use the latest LWIP 1.4.x from git. And try to test lwIP receive speed by
RAW api as following
I use tool send 2MB file, the speed is fast at first, but go to down after a
while or transfer more times.
Anyone know the problem ?
static void close_conn(struct tcp_pcb *pcb)
{
tcp_ar
All:
I had port latest lwip1.4.0 to my system, it works well . but I found some
additional api about mutex are defined in 1.4.0
I want to know that are they necessary ?
err_t sys_mutex_new(sys_mutex_t *mutex)
{
return ERR_OK;
}
void sys_mutex_lock(sys_mutex_t *mutex)
{
}
void sys_m
Hi,
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 10:15:52PM +0200, goldsi...@gmx.de wrote:
>
> This is not really an answer to your post, rather a clarification
> about our PPP code in general:
>
> I know I have said this before and it sounds like a lame excuse, but
> the PPP code is not our own code - we just copi
Sylvain Rochet wrote:
In fsm_rtermreq(), if f->state equals LS_OPENED, which is the Connection
terminated by peer condition, we send a Termination Ack, which seems logical.
But, in this case, we call TIMEOUT(fsm_timeout, ...), but we don't send
any request at this time, what are we waiting for e
Hi,
In fsm_rtermreq(), if f->state equals LS_OPENED, which is the Connection
terminated by peer condition, we send a Termination Ack, which seems logical.
But, in this case, we call TIMEOUT(fsm_timeout, ...), but we don't send
any request at this time, what are we waiting for exactly ?
With PP
"Karlsson, Johnny" wrote:
Ok, that seems much better. But one more question .. You write that
there is a global variable 'errno', but isn't there one errno variable
for each socket?
Normally there should be no need for that since 'errno' should
only be checked immediately after any socket (o
Hi!
There doesn't seem to be a way to detect that a remote host sends a RST
message when using non blocking read. In lwip_recvfrom when a host does
a regular gracious shutdown this bit of code returns 0:
/* We should really do some error checking here. */
LWIP_DEBUGF(SOCKETS_DEBUG, ("lwip
"Karlsson, Johnny" wrote:
> Ok, that seems much better. But one more question .. You write that
> there is a global variable 'errno', but isn't there one errno variable
> for each socket? If so how do I access it?
You can read that by calling getsockopt() with level SOL_SOCKET and optname
SO_ER
Ok, that seems much better. But one more question .. You write that
there is a global variable 'errno', but isn't there one errno variable
for each socket? If so how do I access it? The only function seems to be
to get the socket (get_socket ) but that is a static method.
/Johnny
-Original Me
"Karlsson, Johnny" wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be a way to detect that a remote host sends a RST
> message when using non blocking read.
That doesn't depend on blocking or nonblocking, it's the way the socket API is
defined. When a receive function returns:
- 0, the remote host closed the con
"Bill Auerbach" wrote:
> >As a general advisory, I'm with on that, Kieran.
> >
> >However, I think Bill's way might be correct in his very special case
> >here: calling tcp_recved from the receive callback without freeing the
> >received pbuf does not hurt the stack. The only problem might be runn
Hi!
There doesn't seem to be a way to detect that a remote host sends a RST
message when using non blocking read. In lwip_recvfrom when a host does
a regular gracious shutdown this bit of code returns 0:
/* We should really do some error checking here. */
LWIP_DEBUGF(SOCKETS_DEBUG,
>As a general advisory, I'm with on that, Kieran.
>
>However, I think Bill's way might be correct in his very special case
>here: calling tcp_recved from the receive callback without freeing the
>received pbuf does not hurt the stack. The only problem might be running
>out of pbufs (so newly arrivi
All:
My server build in LWIP1.4.0 need receive more files (400 files) from client. I
define lwipopt.h about TCP
Does it make sense for up to high speed ? is there any recommend value for this
application ?
Thank you ...
/* MEM_SIZE: the size of the heap memory. If the application will send
a
Hi Kieran,
i've sorted this out with the help of Simon. The address i've set in the
bind command was also used as a listener, so i've got the "address in
use" error. LwIP 1.3.x has ignored this, that was the reason why this
was running before.
I'm sending my data now on the existing connecti
20 matches
Mail list logo
