On 22.10.2018 20:53, Joe Hershberger wrote:
Hi Christian,
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:57 AM Christian Gmeiner
<christian.gmei...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Wolfgang
In message <20181001094646.11539-1-christian.gmei...@gmail.com> you wrote:
From: Thomas RIENOESSL <thomas.rienoe...@bachmann.info>
Prep. work to support nfs v1.
Hm... as you are putting efforts into NFS support...
Here comes a more general question:
I wonder if it's worth the work on NFS at all, or if we should
remove NFS support from U-Boot alltogether?
1) We support only NFS v2 (and v3) in U-Boot, and most standard Linux
distros support only v4 in their default configurations.
Linux is not the only operating system used in the world. My NFSv1
server runs on a vxWorks 5 device which
I need to support - sadly.
2) We support only UDP, but most standard Linux distros support only
TCP in their default configurations (see [1])
[1]
http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=steved/nfs-utils.git;a=commitdiff;h=fbd7623dd8d5e418e7cb369d4026d5368f7c46a6
Try a NFS download from any recent Linux distro (i. e. one including
nfs-utils 2.3.1 or later)...
That is true.
I feel a half-way solution is unsatisfactory, but the way for the
Real Thing (TM) is a pretty long one...
The fact that nobody compained yet that NFS stopped working fo him
suggests that there are only very, very few users of NFS at all.
If one of these is willing to step up and fix this for real, he is
of course more than welcome. But if not - should we not remove the
more or less obsolete code?
As u-boot is lacking TCP support this is quite a challenging task. I
have seen some work in progress
patches, which I have reviewed and hoped that it helps to get them
further.
I'm trying to get those patches into a state that they are acceptable,
but currently they are pretty brittle. I've not actually seen them
work, though the contributor says they do in some case. I had to do
some work to have the series just not break UDP functionality, so we
have more work to do there.
I am also
interested in using ftp directly in u-boot. At the moment we are using
uip as tcp stack and hacked
together a ftp client.
I was contemplating if using something like that or lwip would be
better than rolling our own, but my concern is both how configurable
those stacks are to make them lean as well as adding an external
dependency / forking their code into our repo. Not excited about
either.
As the maintainer of lwIP, I already have thought about this more than
once. My main concern however was the license (lwIP is BSD style) and
the fact that it expects to always run (I don't know the U-Boot network
stack that well, but it only runs when called, doesn't it?).
Forking is never a good idea with open source projects. We try to
integrate as much back into the mainline code as possible. Although we
of course depend on the people using the stack to contribute things back.
Of course I don't want to push anyone (and I don't want to load myself
with more work), but I could offer some help in getting it to run if
anyone had a real interest. Configuration shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Given the systems U-Boot runs on, lwIP would definitively be a better
choice than uIP if you have performance improvements of tcp in mind.
[BTW: a http client (a.k.a. 'wget') is already included in lwIP and with
help of a 3rd party TLS library, it even provides HTTPS support]
Simon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
