Re: lwIP

John Dallaway wrote:
>>> b) Compatibility with eCos applications using the existing eCos lwIP
>>>    1.1.1 package if possible (API and existing CDL option names
>>>    preserved)
>>>       
>> Hmm, I didn't really focus on that. I agree that CDL names should be
>> identical as far as possible. Otherwise I'm not sure (initialization
>> etc.) if this really matters as long as it's documented well.
>>     
>
> If it's just a case of making a different API call to initialise the
> stack then I agree this is no problem.
>   

Most of the API comes from lwIP anyway. What will change (at least in my 
port) are a few CDL names as well as the API for initialization.

>>> d) Absolutely minimal mangling of the lwIP sources (it should be easy to
>>>    upgrade lwIP again in the future)
>>>       
>> Mangling is very minimal for these exact reasons, except the PPP sources
>> which were changed quite a bit.
>>     
>
> Has the PPP support in the current lwIP code regressed relative to lwIP
> 1.1.1? If there have been serious regressions, we will need to consider
> how to manage the transition for users of the existing eCos lwIP package.
>
> If you consider your own fixes for PPP to be just a hack then we might
> also consider focussing on ethernet for now and tacking PPP as a
> separate activity.
>   

I don't know if PPP code in lwIP has regressed. The code in my port 
certainly has, as it is tuned to run in a polled, single-threaded 
environment. I think it's a good idea to focus on ethernet support 
first. Fixing PPP is going to be quite some work if we want to do it 
right (in lwIP as well as in eCos). Also adding proper support for 
polling will need some changes in the lwIP code.

>>> Perhaps the best way forward is for John Eigelaar to take Simon
>>> Kallweit's package, work on the sequential API initially and post his
>>> revised package for review and further work by others. Simon, is the
>>> lwIP package in your repository ready for handoff?
>>>       
>> I think we should first discuss my port a little and see if it needs to
>> be changed to fit the needs of others.
>>     
>
> Sure. What aspects do you think need discussion?
>   

Well basically I think the code that I wrote so far :) I'll post a 
little summary of my thoughts and implementation later this day when I 
have some free time.

Simon