[riot-devel] NSTF - Naming the stack

Oleg Hahm oliver.hahm at inria.fr
Mon May 4 17:02:53 CEST 2015


> giving the ng_stack a name sounds like a very good idea to me (and as far as
> I remembered I already mentioned this last summer...). Though finding a name
> is tough and I don't like the obvious once (flexnet_, default_, riotnet_,
> etc...).

To make it easier, I think we can even discard the name prefix. It's very
unlikely that we want to have to have two IPv6 implementations running
parallel. So, assume we have `default_stack` and `tiny_stack`, it's fine if
both define `ipv6_send()` instead of `default_ipv6_send()`.

> Also 'cutting' out the re-usable parts as headers, header parsing, checksum
> calculation and some others might make sense, though with this I think we
> have to keep in mind, that not every network stack implementation has to use
> those 'generic' building blocks, as these implementations might have their
> own requirements to certain function signatures etc...

Sure, that remains to be seen, but I think for some basic functionalities it
might be possible.
> When it comes to protocol header files, as 'net/udp.h', I would be even more
> careful. I don't think we will have a generic udp header, that each network
> stack will comply to. In my opinion, each network stack should just define
> it's own header files, as these will differ depending on their internal
> implementation...

Things like protocol headers will be exactly the same for every implementation
of this protocol, so cutting these out is a MUST. Everything implementation
specific should, of course, stay in separate headers.

printk(KERN_ERR "ide: huh? queue was plugged!\n");
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.riot-os.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150504/257f140e/attachment.sig>

More information about the devel mailing list