On 09/10/2016 07:24 PM, Joe Hershberger wrote:
Hi Marek,
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Marek Vasut marex@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 marex@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.hershberger@ni.com Date: Mon Aug 15 14:42:15 2016 -0500
net: Stop including NFS overhead in defragment maxUh 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 ?