On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 08:13:37PM +0000, Joe Hershberger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:40 PM Simon Goldschmidt > <simon.k.r.goldschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > Yes, the license is a concern. I'm not a lawyer, but maybe someone can > comment on what our options are here. Wolfgang? Tom?
We have BSD-2 and BSD-3 clause code today in the tree, usually because we've had need to bring in existing code under such license. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
