Update TODO list
This commit is contained in:
parent
f421723fbd
commit
3cf287b80e
63
TODO
63
TODO
@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ nuttx/
|
||||
(8) Kernel/Protected Builds
|
||||
(4) C++ Support
|
||||
(6) Binary loaders (binfmt/)
|
||||
(14) Network (net/, drivers/net)
|
||||
(12) Network (net/, drivers/net)
|
||||
(4) USB (drivers/usbdev, drivers/usbhost)
|
||||
(11) Libraries (libc/, libm/)
|
||||
(11) File system/Generic drivers (fs/, drivers/)
|
||||
@ -789,14 +789,6 @@ o Binary loaders (binfmt/)
|
||||
o Network (net/, drivers/net)
|
||||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||||
|
||||
Title: IPv6
|
||||
Description: IPv6 support is incomplete. Adam Dunkels has recently announced
|
||||
IPv6 support for uIP (currently only as part of Contiki). Those
|
||||
changes need to be ported to NuttX.
|
||||
Status: Open. No work will probably be done until there is a specific
|
||||
requirement for IPv6.
|
||||
Priority: Medium
|
||||
|
||||
Title: LISTENING FOR UDP BROADCASTS
|
||||
Description: Incoming UDP broadcast should only be accepted if listening on
|
||||
INADDR_ANY(?)
|
||||
@ -823,27 +815,11 @@ o Network (net/, drivers/net)
|
||||
Priority: Medium-Low. This is an important issue for applications that
|
||||
send on the same TCP socket from multiple threads.
|
||||
|
||||
Title: UDP READ-AHEAD?
|
||||
Description: TCP supports read-ahead buffering to handle the receipt of
|
||||
TCP/IP packets when there is no read() in place. Should such
|
||||
capability be useful for UDP? PRO: Would reduce packet loss
|
||||
and enable support for poll()/select(). CON: UDP is inherently
|
||||
lossy so why waste memory footprint?
|
||||
Status: Open
|
||||
Priority: Medium
|
||||
|
||||
Title: NO POLL/SELECT ON UDP SOCKETS
|
||||
Description: poll()/select() is not implemented for UDP sockets because they do
|
||||
do not support read-ahead buffering. Therefore, there is never
|
||||
a case where you can read from a UDP socket without blocking.
|
||||
Status: Open, depends on UDP read-ahead support
|
||||
Priority: Medium
|
||||
|
||||
Title: POLL/SELECT ON TCP SOCKETS NEEDS READ-AHEAD
|
||||
Description: poll()/select() only works for availability of buffered TCP
|
||||
Title: POLL/SELECT ON TCP/UDP SOCKETS NEEDS READ-AHEAD
|
||||
Description: poll()/select() only works for availability of buffered TCP/UDP
|
||||
read data (when read-ahead is enabled). The way writing is
|
||||
handled in uIP, all sockets must wait when send and cannot
|
||||
be notified when they can send without waiting.
|
||||
handled in the network layer, all sockets must wait when send and
|
||||
cannot be notified when they can send without waiting.
|
||||
Status: Open, probably will not be fixed.
|
||||
Priority: Medium... this does effect porting of applications that expect
|
||||
different behavior from poll()/select()
|
||||
@ -851,8 +827,12 @@ o Network (net/, drivers/net)
|
||||
Title: SOCKETS DO NOT ALWAYS SUPPORT O_NONBLOCK
|
||||
Description: sockets do not support all modes for O_NONBLOCK. Sockets
|
||||
support only (1) TCP/IP non-blocking read operations when read-ahead
|
||||
buffering is enabled, and (2) TCP/IP accept() operations when TCP/IP
|
||||
connection backlog is enabled.
|
||||
buffering is enabled, (2) TCP/IP accept() operations when TCP/IP
|
||||
connection backlog is enabled, and (3) nonblocking operations on
|
||||
Unix domain sockets.
|
||||
REVISIT: UDP read-ahead buffering has been implemented. But I
|
||||
do not think that the necessary bits of logic are in place to
|
||||
permit non-clocking UDP reads.
|
||||
Status: Open
|
||||
Priority: Low.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -943,6 +923,27 @@ o Network (net/, drivers/net)
|
||||
Status: Open
|
||||
Priority: Low, this is just a nuisance in most cases.
|
||||
|
||||
Title: FIFO CLEAN-UP AFTER CLOSING UNIX DOMAIN SOCKET
|
||||
Description: FIFOs are used as the IPC underlying local Unix domain sockets.
|
||||
In NuttX, FIFOs are implemented as device drivers (not as
|
||||
special files). The FIFO device driver is instantiated when
|
||||
the Unix domain socket communications begin. But there is no
|
||||
mechanism in place now to delete the FIFO device driver
|
||||
instance when the Unix domain socket is no longer used. The
|
||||
underlying buffer is deleted, but the driver instance itself
|
||||
remains. unlink() could be used to get rid of the driver
|
||||
name in the pseudo-filesystem, making the drvier inaccessible.
|
||||
But it will not free the driver. A new interface, say rmfifo(),
|
||||
would be required to do that.
|
||||
Status: Open
|
||||
Priority: Low for now because I don't have a situation where this is a
|
||||
problem for me. If you use the same Unix domain paths, then
|
||||
it is not a issue; in fact it is more efficient if the FIFO
|
||||
devices persiste. But this would be a serious problem if,
|
||||
for example, you create new Unix domain paths dynaically. In
|
||||
that case you would effectly have a memory leak and the number
|
||||
of FIFO instances grow.
|
||||
|
||||
o USB (drivers/usbdev, drivers/usbhost)
|
||||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user