[U-Boot] [PATCH] Change default tftp timeout to be rfc-compliant

[Bin Meng]

Hi Pavel, Joe,

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel at 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.

> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel at denx.de>
>
> diff --git a/net/tftp.c b/net/tftp.c
> index 18ce84c..e919638 100644
> --- a/net/tftp.c
> +++ b/net/tftp.c
> @@ -18,8 +18,9 @@
>
>  /* Well known TFTP port # */
>  #define WELL_KNOWN_PORT        69
> -/* Millisecs to timeout for lost pkt */
> -#define TIMEOUT                100UL
> +/* Millisecs to timeout for lost pkt. Anything below 1000msec is against RFC, and
> +   some servers will refuse it. */

Nits: please use correct multi-line comment format.

> +#define TIMEOUT                1000UL
>  #ifndef        CONFIG_NET_RETRY_COUNT
>  /* # of timeouts before giving up */
>  # define TIMEOUT_COUNT 1000
>
> --

I still would like to revert commit 620776d (IOW, apply my revert
patch @ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/510389/). Then Pavel to
submit a new patch to change only TIMEOUT_COUNT to something larger (I
am still not convinced that we need change the retry count from 10 to
1000). Perhaps with a better comment in the codes to explain why a
larger TIMEOUT_COUNT is needed.

Regards,
Bin