Oh, crap, I’m off by 3 orders of magnitude, I’ve got 512KB. Bother, I need a nap already.
A > On 2021-February-01, at 15:35, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:25 PM Andrei Chichak <and...@chichak.ca > <mailto:and...@chichak.ca>> wrote: > any guidance choosing between “Legacy Stack” and libbsd? > > This one is easy. Please please please please do NOT choose the legacy stack. > :) > > The legacy stack should only be used on projects that are using it and those > are encouraged to move along to libbsd or lwip or new hardware. We have no > plans to eliminate the legacy stack from the world. But as Gedare said, we > want > to move it to a separate repository. If someone cares, then it gets a build > system > and can be used with a strong discouragement. > > It is 20+ years old now and IPV4 only. Do the math. :) > > > I’ve got a 512MB of RAM processor, so I expect that I’ll have lots left over. > But that is TBD. > > 512MB is still huge in RTEMS terms. That won't be a problem for libbsd at > all. It is when you > start considering targets with < 16MB that we have concerns. I suspect that > number is <4MB > but the original BSP for the legacy stack only had 1MB for code and data > space. It is clear > some boards that could run the legacy stack will not be capable of running > libbsd but we > don't have a hard cutoff yet. > > --joel > > A > >> On 2021-February-01, at 15:21, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org >> <mailto:j...@rtems.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:03 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org >> <mailto:ged...@rtems.org>> wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 2:42 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org >> <mailto:chr...@rtems.org>> wrote: >> On 2/2/21 8:32 am, Mr. Andrei Chichak wrote: >> > Is there any advantage to using bsd networking over LWiP, or vice versa? >> >> They are different stacks with different feature sets and different hardware >> resource demands. I am not familiar with the features of LwIP so I am not the >> best person to compare them. >> >> The BSD stack has most of the features you get with FreeBSD. It has IPv4, >> IPv6, >> IPsec, VLAN, bridging, dhcp, openssl, lots of routing alternatives, packet >> filtering and more. It has a range of useful commands including tcpdump. >> >> The BSD based system provides a solid base to solve a range of networking >> issues >> your RTEMS device may encounter at the system level and not at the low level >> programming level. >> >> The BSD stack uses a lot more resources to do all this and LwIP may be a >> prefect >> fit. I welcome RTEMS being able to support a range of networking solutions. >> >> >> I have a student (Vijay) working on refactoring libnetworking out of RTEMS, >> and will be testing ability to compile legacy vs libbsd. If the lwip build >> is demonstrated and clear, I can have him also look at bringing that into >> the fold. This is in line with https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3850 >> <https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/3850> >> >> One thing to be aware of is that all the POSIX networking header files for >> RTEMS are in newlib and always present. I had to address this and lwip when >> we did Deos+RTEMS. Deos uses lwip as their native stack running in a >> partition and other partitions use a client to get to it. The lwip constants >> had values that were not the same as the RTEMS BSD headers for POSIX >> defines. There were also some places where the structure definitions did not >> align. I had to write a bit of mapping in the client. When lwip works at >> all, it would be awesome to have a way for it to ignore their own minimal >> POSIX API files and build against ours. >> >> This would be similar to how the newlib headers define a very complete POSIX >> API set but each target OS may only support a subset of it. >> >> As it is, I wonder if there is a conflict between the RTEMS newlib network >> .h files and those provided by lwip which could cause issues. >> >> >> We have no certain timeline yet, but it is now work-in-progress. We will >> bring to devel when progress is made. If we do lwIP too, we will aim to do a >> performance analysis with real hardware, so that we can hopefully provide >> evidence to help these kind of questions. >> >> -Gedare >> >> Chris >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> users@rtems.org <mailto:users@rtems.org> >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> <http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users>_______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> users@rtems.org <mailto:users@rtems.org> >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> <http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users> > --------------------- > Andrei Chichak > 4024-120 STREET > EDMONTON, ALBERTA > T6J 1X8 > CANADA > > > Phone: 780-434-6266 > Skype: andrei.chichak > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@rtems.org <mailto:users@rtems.org> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users > <http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
