From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:33:14 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Change default tftp timeout to be rfc-compliant In-Reply-To: <20150825144910.GN25532@bill-the-cat> References: <20150825071240.GA9803@amd> <20150825114425.GA16939@amd> <20150825143248.GA4785@amd> <20150825144910.GN25532@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <20150825153314.GA4373@amd> List-Id: 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 10:49:10, Tom Rini wrote: > 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 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? According to RFC, we should not be putting 0 there. Best regards, Pavel http://www.rfc-base.org/txt/rfc-2349.txt #secs The number of seconds to wait before retransmitting, specified in ASCII. Valid values range between "1" and "255" seconds, inclusive. This is a NULL-terminated field. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html