On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 08:13:37PM +0000, Joe Hershberger wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:40 PM Simon Goldschmidt simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com wrote:
On 22.10.2018 20:53, Joe Hershberger wrote:
Hi Christian,
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:57 AM Christian Gmeiner christian.gmeiner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Wolfgang
In message 20181001094646.11539-1-christian.gmeiner@gmail.com you wrote:
From: Thomas RIENOESSL thomas.rienoessl@bachmann.info
Prep. work to support nfs v1.
Hm... as you are putting efforts into NFS support...
Here comes a more general question:
I wonder if it's worth the work on NFS at all, or if we should remove NFS support from U-Boot alltogether?
- We support only NFS v2 (and v3) in U-Boot, and most standard Linux distros support only v4 in their default configurations.
Linux is not the only operating system used in the world. My NFSv1 server runs on a vxWorks 5 device which I need to support - sadly.
We support only UDP, but most standard Linux distros support only TCP in their default configurations (see [1])
[1] http://git.linux-nfs.org/?p=steved/nfs-utils.git;a=commitdiff;h=fbd7623dd8d5...
Try a NFS download from any recent Linux distro (i. e. one including nfs-utils 2.3.1 or later)...
That is true.
I feel a half-way solution is unsatisfactory, but the way for the Real Thing (TM) is a pretty long one...
The fact that nobody compained yet that NFS stopped working fo him suggests that there are only very, very few users of NFS at all. If one of these is willing to step up and fix this for real, he is of course more than welcome. But if not - should we not remove the more or less obsolete code?
As u-boot is lacking TCP support this is quite a challenging task. I have seen some work in progress patches, which I have reviewed and hoped that it helps to get them further.
I'm trying to get those patches into a state that they are acceptable, but currently they are pretty brittle. I've not actually seen them work, though the contributor says they do in some case. I had to do some work to have the series just not break UDP functionality, so we have more work to do there.
I am also interested in using ftp directly in u-boot. At the moment we are using uip as tcp stack and hacked together a ftp client.
I was contemplating if using something like that or lwip would be better than rolling our own, but my concern is both how configurable those stacks are to make them lean as well as adding an external dependency / forking their code into our repo. Not excited about either.
As the maintainer of lwIP, I already have thought about this more than once. My main concern however was the license (lwIP is BSD style) and
Yes, the license is a concern. I'm not a lawyer, but maybe someone can comment on what our options are here. Wolfgang? Tom?
We have BSD-2 and BSD-3 clause code today in the tree, usually because we've had need to bring in existing code under such license.