RE: [lwip-devel] [bug #19162] lwip_sendto: possible to corrupt remoteaddr/port connection state

[Goldschmidt Simon]

> > We have already talk about that, but I think that two sequential
api, 
> > with one based on the other one, is not a good idea: I think it will

> > be better to
> > keep the BSD one, and to add some extra functions for zero-copy. So,

> > most of
> > the code will be the same, footprint will be reduced (for BSD users,

> > of course :) ), less code will have to be maintain, keep source code

> > compatibility with most of open source applications...). But this
last 
> > comment is another subject (and a bigger task)... (if you want to 
> > continue to
> > talk about that, I propose to continue on the forum).
> 
> As you probably know I disagree :-). I don't think you can 
> sensibly add zero copy to a BSD socket API. At the very 
> least, once you try, you haven't got a BSD socket API. There 

As only the send/recv functions would have to be changed so that
zero-copy can be
included, this wouldn't break BSD-compatibility but just add additional
functions to it.

> might be an argument for implementing BSD directly over the 
> raw API, but if it's doing largely the same things as the 
> netconn API, that wouldn't give much benefits and makes 

It could speed up BSD performance! Anyway, it would break the existing
netconn api,
of course, so no way to get that soon.
Although I'd like to know what the performance gain would be for the
sockets API,
maybe I'll test that one day :)

> things larger if anyone uses both APIs at the same time. 

Hm, does anyone do that? An if we'd add zero-copy functions to BSD. You
wouldn't
need 2 similar APIs that only differ in zero-copy or not.



Simon