On Tue 2015-08-25 21:03:26, Bin Meng wrote:
> Hi Pavel, Joe,
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Pavel Machek <pa...@denx.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> > tftp timeout of 100msec gives good performance on local ethernet, but
> > some servers (Centos) refuse to operate, and it is against RFC 2349.
> >
> > This fixes regression caused by
> > 620776d734e4b126c407f636bda825a594a17723 .
> >
>
> This patch does not fix the issue properly. As the commit 620776d also
> changed the "<1000" test logic to "<10", which should not be. See my
> comments below.
Yes, I know.. and I'd like the test logic to stay. Some tftp servers
can handle that, and performance is significantly better that way.
Best regards,
Pavel
> I still would like to revert commit 620776d (IOW, apply my revert
> patch @ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/510389/). Then Pavel to
> submit a new patch to change only TIMEOUT_COUNT to something larger (I
> am still not convinced that we need change the retry count from 10 to
> 1000). Perhaps with a better comment in the codes to explain why a
> larger TIMEOUT_COUNT is needed.
>
> Regards,
> Bin
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
