[lwip-devel] [task #6827] etharp could need some tuning

[Simon Goldschmidt]

Follow-up Comment #27, task #6827 (project lwip):

Although I don't have anything against introducing an option for this (an
I've already thought about that), creating an option for one parameter to be
left out is tricky and leads to code that is bad to read, I think.

Creating a define like
#define LINKLAYER_ADDR_HINT , u8_t *addr_hint
would be a solution for the optional parameters, but is it OK to include such
a define in the code???

Still, what we would gain having an option without leaving away the parameter
(and thus passing NULL around), would be 1 byte less in the pcbs and leaving
out the pointer check in etharp.c:find_entry().

The problem with your UDP streams is that no caching algorithm (even hashing)
can really avoid searching for the right entry, which is what the patch should
do. So leaving it the way it is would be best for the situation you described?

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?6827>

_______________________________________________
  Nachricht geschickt von/durch Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/