From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] net: BOOTP retry timeout improvements
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:04:58 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53F2242A.8060904@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140815213906.GA20860@mithrandir>
On 08/15/2014 03:39 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:02:40AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
...
>> Re-transmitting a DHCP request shouldn't prevent a response to the previous
>> request from being processed - AFAIK each request is idempotent. Can you
>> debug what is causing the 8s delay? Are earlier responses received and
>> rejected for some reason, or is your DHCP server getting confused by the
>> multiple requests and not responding, or ...?
>
> I haven't really tested this, but by looking at the code in net/bootp.c
> (function BootpCheckPkt()) the U-Boot implementation will reject all
> packets that don't match the BootpID (which is composed of the lower 4
> bytes of the ethernet address plus the time in milliseconds when the
> discover packet was sent, see BootpRequest()).
>
> So indeed earlier responses will be rejected, which would also explain
> the 8 second delay since that's about the time it takes for the backoff
> to reach the timeout that the server requires to reply before the next
> retransmission.
Ah, that's a problem then, especially given that Thierry mentioned that
(some) DHCP servers send out an ARP address and wait for any responses,
to avoid address conflicts.
I suppose we have two options here:
a) Make each of U-Boot's DHCP requests identical, so that responses to
an earlier request are accepted even if a later request has been sent. I
don't know what the implications are here; perhaps some dumb DHCP server
might give out different results for the different responses, so we
actively don't want to accept the stale data?
b) Revert my patch. Perhaps think about tweaking the initial retry
time-out later.
(b) seems simplest. Tom, it's f59be6e850b3 "net: BOOTP retry timeout
improvements". It looks like nothing has touched the same files since it
was applied, so it should be a simple revert.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-18 16:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-25 23:30 [U-Boot] [PATCH] net: BOOTP retry timeout improvements Stephen Warren
2014-08-06 15:58 ` Stephen Warren
2014-08-06 18:10 ` Tom Rini
2014-08-06 20:03 ` Joe Hershberger
2014-08-10 22:22 ` [U-Boot] " Tom Rini
2014-08-15 12:39 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH] " Thierry Reding
2014-08-15 12:49 ` Thierry Reding
2014-08-15 16:02 ` Stephen Warren
2014-08-15 21:39 ` Thierry Reding
2014-08-15 22:09 ` Thierry Reding
2014-08-18 16:04 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2014-08-18 16:15 ` Tom Rini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53F2242A.8060904@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox