Re: [lwip-users] netconn_delete and _recv not thread safe

[Jonathan Larmour]

Kieran Mansley wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 20:59 +0000, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>
> > It may be possible to solve this if it is ok to assign mboxes:
> >      SYS_ARCH_PROTECT(old_level);
> >      tmp_mbox = conn->recvmbox;
> >      conn->recvmbox = SYS_MBOX_NULL;
> >      SYS_ARCH_UNPROTECT(old_level);
> >
> > Is assuming mboxes are assignable a valid approach? Any other thoughts?
>
> That would be exactly what I'd try first.  Should be easy to experiment
> with at least.

Oh it works for me because of how I define sys_mbox_t - for me it's only a 
handle. But if I was to contribute the patch, someone else's sys_mbox_t 
might be a direct typedef of a larger structure, in which case this would 
assign the whole structure. Not necessarily bad, but not straightforward. 
I'm wondering if there are any situations where assigning the whole 
structure could be the wrong thing to do.

So I'd like to get the _right_ fix - getting it to work for me is easy :).

Jifl
--
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
------["The best things in life aren't things."]------      Opinions==mine