From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from relaygw4-12.mclink.it ([213.21.178.179]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WhI29-0007Ax-E5 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 05 May 2014 12:30:14 +0000 Received: from [195.110.128.82] (HELO smtpoutgw3.mclink.it) by relaygw4-12.mclink.it (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.6) with ESMTP id 18696799 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 05 May 2014 14:29:47 +0200 Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 14:29:44 +0200 From: Alessandro Rubini Message-ID: <20140505122944.GA1567@mail.gnudd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140505145512.133932fc3ee2247b660638c2@gmail.com> References: <20140505145512.133932fc3ee2247b660638c2@gmail.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: TODO: Rewrite network stack. To: antonynpavlov@gmail.com Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org > 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). /alessandro _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox