lwip-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]