Graeme Russ wrote: > Just my two cents worth... > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Jerry Van Baren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Bartlomiej Sieka wrote: >>> There are two aspects of a TFTP transfer involving timeouts: >>> 1. timeout waiting for initial server reply after sending RRQ >>> 2. timeouts while transferring actual data from the server > >> Are seconds an appropriate scale factor for the timeout? Using tenths >> (thousandths?) of seconds seems much better for allowing timeout >> choices. (Thousandths could cause problems with clock tick resolution >> and is unnecessarily fine grained. Gut feel is tenths of seconds is > > I would have thought that milliseconds would be the most appropriate > choice (milliseconds being an SI unit and most timeouts I have seen > have been defined in milliseconds) - If it is going to be a problem > at the lower level, you can always divide by 10 (or 100) when you > actually implement the timeout functionality. I just think at the user > level it should be seconds or milliseconds > > Regards, > Graeme
Hi Graeme, Milliseconds is fine with me. I actually started editing my email with milliseconds, then debated thousandths/hundredths/tenths and ended up with tenths. My main concern is that seconds is too coarse. Best regards, gvb _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
