From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WhITV-0004hv-25 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 05 May 2014 12:58:33 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id q8so2755666lbi.13 for ; Mon, 05 May 2014 05:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 17:08:50 +0400 From: Antony Pavlov Message-Id: <20140505170850.69ea223f68c8ac15ada5c16e@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140505122944.GA1567@mail.gnudd.com> References: <20140505145512.133932fc3ee2247b660638c2@gmail.com> <20140505122944.GA1567@mail.gnudd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: TODO: Rewrite network stack. To: Alessandro Rubini Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Mon, 5 May 2014 14:29:44 +0200 Alessandro Rubini wrote: > > The most notable is lwIP (http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/lwip/). > = > I'm not happy at all about this code base, it looks quite ugly and > old-fashioned. It's not the barebox kind of quality. I'd stay with the > current code rather than lwip, despite the number of users. > = > If any, I'd evaluate picotcp (https://github.com/tass-belgium/picotcp). Thanks for very interesting picotcp link! At a glance picotcp looks better than lwip. --=A0 Best regards, =A0 Antony Pavlov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox