[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] net: Make TFTP server timeout configurable

[Jerry Van Baren]

Graeme Russ wrote:
> Just my two cents worth...
> 
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren at ge.com> wrote:
>> Bartlomiej Sieka wrote:
>>> There are two aspects of a TFTP transfer involving timeouts:
>>> 1. timeout waiting for initial server reply after sending RRQ
>>> 2. timeouts while transferring actual data from the server
> 
>> Are seconds an appropriate scale factor for the timeout?  Using tenths
>> (thousandths?) of seconds seems much better for allowing timeout
>> choices.  (Thousandths could cause problems with clock tick resolution
>> and is unnecessarily fine grained.  Gut feel is tenths of seconds is
> 
> I would have thought that milliseconds would be the most appropriate
> choice (milliseconds being an SI unit and most timeouts I have seen
> have been defined in milliseconds) - If it is going to be a problem
> at the lower level, you can always divide by 10 (or 100) when you
> actually implement the timeout functionality. I just think at the user
> level it should be seconds or milliseconds
> 
> Regards,
> Graeme

Hi Graeme,

Milliseconds is fine with me.  I actually started editing my email with 
milliseconds, then debated thousandths/hundredths/tenths and ended up 
with tenths.  My main concern is that seconds is too coarse.

Best regards,
gvb