Re: [lwip-users] tcp_abandon

[Simon Goldschmidt]

"Bill Auerbach" <address@hidden> wrote:
> With loss of link being fatal, we stop but we want the PC to reconnect as
> quickly as possible and not leave anything taking up resources from the
> previous connection.

Bill, I don't want to be picky about this, but I would have thought that trying 
to send a single RST is magnitudes faster than ethernet re-negotiating the link.

Other than that, if you really want to prevent the stack wasting time trying to 
send frames when the link is down, I think it would be better to let the stack 
check the "link up" flag and stop sending somewhere up the callstack instead of 
letting the application handle it (by calling "abandon" instead of "abort"). 
Exposing a function that aborts a connection without notifying the remote side 
still does not seem like a good idea to me. You really need to know what you 
are doing when using such a function. I have no doubt that *you* know what you 
are doing, but an lwIP beginner might be confused by too many functions and 
accidentally use the wrong one.

Simon
-- 
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de