On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 04:32:48PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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.
Well, what does the RFC say we can and cannot do here? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
