[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-devel] lwIP core cleanup
From: |
Sylvain Rochet |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-devel] lwIP core cleanup |
Date: |
Fri, 6 May 2016 23:34:37 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
Hello Dirk,
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:40:09AM +0100, Dirk Ziegelmeier wrote:
> Hello Sylvain,
>
> Simon and I would like to propose a few changes in PPP code:
I kind of disagree of this development method. For several months now,
for the lwIP outsiders it looks like you are both privately discussing
about what should be done in lwIP. I couldn't find anything in the
devel-list about this subject prior to this mail.
And this private mail is even worse, everyone should be able to follow
what is happening on lwIP. I don't want to look like that I'm also part
of those who are privately discussing about changes, thus this is why
I'm Cc:ing lwip-devel here.
> - Move most options into a new netif/ppp/ppp_opts.h file to unclutter
> opt.h some more
I don't care, go for it.
> - Move mempools out of memp_std.h into PPP code to create private
> mempools and decouple core pools from PPP
I don't care, go for it.
> - Would it be OK to let the user call ppp_init() (breaking change)?
> Maybe we can move PPP specific code out of init.c - but I'll have
> to figure something out for the #warning checks before that.
For me it's a no, I don't think it's a good idea.
Anyway, I'm a bit late here, I've been mostly unavailable for lwIP those
previous months and I'm having a hard time catching up with everything,
but in the end, everything went as expected, thank you ;-)
> Was it OK to remove tcpip_pppos_input? Sorry, I should have asked
> before doing so!
Of course it was, the way it used to be done was a bad design choice.
Sylvain
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: [lwip-devel] lwIP core cleanup,
Sylvain Rochet <=