On 09/10/2016 06:28 PM, Joe Hershberger wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >> On 09/10/2016 03:34 AM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote: >>> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 02:18 +0200, Marcel Ziswiler wrote: >>>> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 01:23 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 09/10/2016 01:13 AM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 01:04 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 09/09/2016 11:06 PM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 13:57 -0500, Joe Hershberger wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Joshua, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/666191/ was applied to >>>>>>>>> u- >>>>>>>>> boot- >>>>>>>>> net.git. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>> -Joe >>>>>>>> No, sorry, but this is really the wrong approach! As >>>>>>>> discussed >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> rather than Joshua's patch the one from Alban should long >>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> been applied: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg221455.h >>>>>>>> tm >>>>>>>> l >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will send a revert ASAP and hope Alban's patch will finally >>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>> way into master to fix this once and for all! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you, instead of sending a revert, just send a subsequent >>>>>>> patch to >>>>>>> fix this once and for all ? >>>>>> Sure, I will just squash my revert and Alban's fix together and >>>>>> send >>>>>> that one along ASAP. >>>>> Thanks >>>> Don't thank me too early yet. While it works on Colibri T20 it >>>> currently fails on Colibri T30. More network and/or USB brokenness... >>>> Currently bisecting... >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for taking care of this mess :) >>>>>> You are very welcome. >>>> How I do love U-Boot. >>> >>> And the winner is: >>> >>> commit aa7a648747d8c704a9a81c9e493d386930724e9d >>> Author: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershber...@ni.com> >>> Date: Mon Aug 15 14:42:15 2016 -0500 >>> >>> net: Stop including NFS overhead in defragment max >>> >> >> Uh oh, why is this aforementioned patch even correct ? And why don't we >> just revert it ? And why didn't anyone notice any problems with it ? > > Before that patch, on at least some platforms, lots of memory was > being wasted just because of trying to single-source the size of NFS > overhead. That patch removed that. > > The comment from that patch: "If a board needs a specific different > defragment size, that board can override this setting." > > That is the case here.
Can we be sure that this patch will not break other board(s) ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
