Hi Marek, On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > On 09/10/2016 03:34 AM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote: >> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 02:18 +0200, Marcel Ziswiler wrote: >>> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 01:23 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> >>>> On 09/10/2016 01:13 AM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 01:04 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/09/2016 11:06 PM, Marcel Ziswiler wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 13:57 -0500, Joe Hershberger wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Joshua, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/666191/ was applied to >>>>>>>> u- >>>>>>>> boot- >>>>>>>> net.git. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>> -Joe >>>>>>> No, sorry, but this is really the wrong approach! As >>>>>>> discussed >>>>>>> before >>>>>>> rather than Joshua's patch the one from Alban should long >>>>>>> since >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> been applied: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg221455.h >>>>>>> tm >>>>>>> l >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will send a revert ASAP and hope Alban's patch will finally >>>>>>> make >>>>>>> its >>>>>>> way into master to fix this once and for all! >>>>>>> >>>>>> Can you, instead of sending a revert, just send a subsequent >>>>>> patch to >>>>>> fix this once and for all ? >>>>> Sure, I will just squash my revert and Alban's fix together and >>>>> send >>>>> that one along ASAP. >>>> Thanks >>> Don't thank me too early yet. While it works on Colibri T20 it >>> currently fails on Colibri T30. More network and/or USB brokenness... >>> Currently bisecting... >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for taking care of this mess :) >>>>> You are very welcome. >>> How I do love U-Boot. >> >> And the winner is: >> >> commit aa7a648747d8c704a9a81c9e493d386930724e9d >> Author: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershber...@ni.com> >> Date: Mon Aug 15 14:42:15 2016 -0500 >> >> net: Stop including NFS overhead in defragment max >> > > Uh oh, why is this aforementioned patch even correct ? And why don't we > just revert it ? And why didn't anyone notice any problems with it ?
Before that patch, on at least some platforms, lots of memory was being wasted just because of trying to single-source the size of NFS overhead. That patch removed that. The comment from that patch: "If a board needs a specific different defragment size, that board can override this setting." That is the case here. Cheers, -Joe _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot