On 09/10/2016 07:24 PM, Joe Hershberger wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: >> On 09/10/2016 06:28 PM, Joe Hershberger wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Can we be sure that this patch will not break other board(s) ? > > It will likely affect 2 other boards in the same way... > > include/configs/apalis_t30.h: 56 #define CONFIG_TFTP_BLOCKSIZE 16384 > include/configs/colibri_imx7.h: 49 #define CONFIG_TFTP_BLOCKSIZE > 16384 > include/configs/colibri_t30.h: 52 #define CONFIG_TFTP_BLOCKSIZE > 16384
I _think_ you're mixing IP_PKTSIZE and CONFIG_TFTP_BLOCKSIZE (I might be wrong, I'm no network stack expert). My biggest concern about the aa7a648747d8c704a9a81c9e493d386930724e9d patch is that it might cause silent memory corruption on a lot of systems. Are you positive this is not the case, ever ? -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
