[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance
From: |
Kieran Mansley |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance |
Date: |
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:20:07 +0100 |
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 18:34 -0400, Karthik Vadambacheri Manian wrote:
> Also from your above statement do you mean
> that separate interrupt should occur for both acknowledgement packet
> and
> data packet?. Please let me know.
That would be one solution, but there are plenty of other ways to
achieve reliable timely delivery. An interrupt per packet will result
in a lot more overhead than being able to take a single interrupt that
delivers multiple packets though.
Kieran
- [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance, Karthik Vadambacheri Manian, 2010/08/03
- Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance, Kieran Mansley, 2010/08/05
- Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance, Karthik Vadambacheri Manian, 2010/08/09
- Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance, Kieran Mansley, 2010/08/12
- Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance, Karthik Vadambacheri Manian, 2010/08/17
- Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance, Kieran Mansley, 2010/08/18
- Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance, Karthik Vadambacheri Manian, 2010/08/18
- Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance,
Kieran Mansley <=
- Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance, Karthik Vadambacheri Manian, 2010/08/19
- Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance, Kieran Mansley, 2010/08/20
- Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance, Karthik Vadambacheri Manian, 2010/08/30
- Re: [lwip-users] Improving LWIP performance, Kieran Mansley, 2010/08/31