[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE : [lwip-devel] [task #7213] Add a lwip_init function
From: |
Frédéric BERNON |
Subject: |
RE : [lwip-devel] [task #7213] Add a lwip_init function |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:49:39 +0200 |
Hi Simon,
I'm not sure to understand: as tcpip_init use the OS/sys_arch (sys_mbox_new &
sys_thread_new), your OS should be start, or I miss something ? Or semaphores
are initialized in a part of your OS, and mbox & thread in another part ?
====================================
Frédéric BERNON
HYMATOM SA
Chef de projet informatique
Microsoft Certified Professional
Tél. : +33 (0)4-67-87-61-10
Fax. : +33 (0)4-67-70-85-44
Email : address@hidden
Web Site : http://www.hymatom.fr
====================================
P Avant d'imprimer, penser à l'environnement
-----Message d'origine-----
De : address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden De la part de Goldschmidt Simon
Envoyé : mardi 21 août 2007 11:01
À : lwip-devel
Objet : RE: [lwip-devel] [task #7213] Add a lwip_init function
> >When I made that comment earlier, I had imagined that lwip_init would
> >do all
> >that semaphore stuff and make its own tcpip_init_done
> >function. But, I didn't think that there could be other
> >possibilities for tcpip_init's initfunc.
>
> I'm agree that the semaphore stuff could be done in
> tcpip_init to got a synchrone call after which we can be sure
I don't agree! I call tcpip_init *before* the OS is started, so I don't have
semaphores at that time!
> the stack is initialized. But the other aim of the init_func
> parameter is to provide a "place" to do some job in the
> tcpip_thread's context just after most of initializations...
_______________________________________________
lwip-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-devel
Frédéric BERNON.vcf
Description: Frédéric BERNON.vcf
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- RE : [lwip-devel] [task #7213] Add a lwip_init function,
Frédéric BERNON <=