From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:32:48 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Change default tftp timeout to be rfc-compliant
In-Reply-To: <CAEUhbmXQb1h+Ho1Z_NstU0L6mdnH3VN3D=PfoY7Y7GaKtspe-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEUhbmU_=Qk1wmAyv2p8OE3einHacXDGijx99xzmNxCT5wjMhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150825071240.GA9803@amd>
 <CAEUhbmXywZuAe9rQMiDpHaAS2O6K8gSwhM1CSckmGUNyb_qhVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150825114425.GA16939@amd>
 <CAEUhbmXQb1h+Ho1Z_NstU0L6mdnH3VN3D=PfoY7Y7GaKtspe-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150825143248.GA4785@amd>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

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 <pavel@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