Hi Pavel, Joe, On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Pavel Machek <pa...@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. > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pa...@denx.de> > > diff --git a/net/tftp.c b/net/tftp.c > index 18ce84c..e919638 100644 > --- a/net/tftp.c > +++ b/net/tftp.c > @@ -18,8 +18,9 @@ > > /* Well known TFTP port # */ > #define WELL_KNOWN_PORT 69 > -/* Millisecs to timeout for lost pkt */ > -#define TIMEOUT 100UL > +/* Millisecs to timeout for lost pkt. Anything below 1000msec is against > RFC, and > + some servers will refuse it. */ Nits: please use correct multi-line comment format. > +#define TIMEOUT 1000UL > #ifndef CONFIG_NET_RETRY_COUNT > /* # of timeouts before giving up */ > # define TIMEOUT_COUNT 1000 > > -- 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 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot