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 pavel@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.
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.