[lwip-devel] [patch #6370] Sending to myself

[Luca Ceresoli]

Follow-up Comment #7, patch #6370 (project lwip):

> [Jonathan] I'm a bit unconvinced of some of the naming
I'm not proud of them, my muse was on vacation that day.

Some ideas to improve naming and the rest fo my patch.
- IP_TO_SELF >> LWIP_NETIF_LOOBPACK
- IP_TO_SELF_MULTITHREADING >> LWIP_NETIF_LOOBPACK_MULTITHREADING
  (argh, _very_ long)
- netif.self_{first|last} >> netif.loop_{first|last}
- loopif_poll() >> no idea (Simon?)
- LWIP_LOOPIF_MULTITHREADING: will it be needed anymore, in case
  the loop behaviour is moved into netif?
- How about setting the default value of IP_TO_SELF_MULTITHREADING
  to (!NO_SYS)?
- Moving the _output() function from loopif.c to netif.c, I changed
  from pbuf_alloc(PBUF_RAW, ...) to pbuf_alloc(PBUF_LINK, ...). I need
  an ack/nack on that by someone with more knowledge of pbufs.

Comments?

> [Simon] I'd still be more pleased to leave the code in loopif.c
I see no advantage in that apart from backward compatibility (which is a
no-issue, according to Jonathan).
After all you would introduce new code, part of which tricky (the fourth of
your points is a workaround to make a single loopif mimic the proper behaviour
of many real netifs). My patch is just _moving_ good code to a place where it
does better.

What's the pros of having one (big) queue, compared to many (smaller) ones?


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/patch/?6370>

_______________________________________________
  Messaggio inviato con/da Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/