pkg: provide sock_udp support for lwip#5937
Conversation
|
Needs adaptation to #5945. |
|
No time, reassigning. |
|
Adaption to #6137 (comment) also needed... |
|
What's the latest on this? |
5a1e6b2 to
05f6a12
Compare
|
Rebased and made adaptation. |
|
Ping? |
5125e2b to
0be4ebb
Compare
|
Rebased and squashed to latest master. |
ef282dc to
0be4ebb
Compare
a2c8f03 to
1f83319
Compare
|
Squashed |
1f83319 to
e801839
Compare
|
Added nucleo32-f042 to boards that do not have sufficient memory and squashed immediately. |
|
Jenkin's happy. I'm adding Murdock :-) |
|
I guess it's known that tests/lwip and examples/gnrc_networking is not interoperable? |
|
On a phytec board I don't get an IPv6 address. |
|
Well I think for interoperability lwip is using IPv4 and gnrc_networking IPv6 isn't it? @miri64 ? |
Yes, there is a bug in lwIP preventing this
Huh? lwIP also is able to speak IPv6, but its not parsing IEEE 802.15.4 headers correctly. |
|
@PeterKietzmann are the extensive tests in |
|
As said, |
kYc0o
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just some minor comments, I'll test and then ACK.
|
|
||
| ssize_t sock_udp_recv(sock_udp_t *sock, void *data, size_t max_len, | ||
| uint32_t timeout, sock_udp_ep_t *remote) | ||
| { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why ssize_t? As far as I can see you're returning int and at the end you cast another int to this type...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is unrelated to this PR. If you want to change the sock API, please do so in a separate PR. Otherwise I can't change it, because the API demands it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK I didn't know that the sock API forced that type. Then for this PR it's OK.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please don't change the API again :-(
| #define _MSG_QUEUE_SIZE (1) | ||
| #define _SEND_DONE (0x92d7) | ||
| #define _NETDEV_BUFFER_SIZE (128) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe these could be aligned?
|
Tested with success on native. |
|
Adressed comments |
|
Then everything is OK, you squash and merge when Murdock agrees. |
|
@kYc0o did you experience the same problems with |
|
I'll check it asap, since I just ran |
83407ea to
a45256a
Compare
|
Squashed
@PeterKietzmann I highly doubt this is related to this PR. |
|
@PeterKietzmann I don't find a way to test |
@miri64, @kYc0o I've tested with #6372 and I would also assume the problem in there. However, I intended to compare test results. We can continue the discussion in there. |
|
Yapp, but are you okay with merging this one for now? |
|
I'd say merge everything necessary for #6732 and test there, if there is something pointing here then we can find it easily I think. So, merge at will. |
This was taken out of #5802 and only provides the
sock_udppart and the tests for it.This contains duplicate changes to #5936, so merging any of these might require rebase.