From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6009 invoked by alias); 18 May 2006 13:26:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 6000 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2006 13:26:29 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from londo.lunn.ch (HELO londo.lunn.ch) (80.238.139.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 13:26:26 +0000 Received: from lunn by londo.lunn.ch with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1FgiWD-0004VM-00; Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:21 +0200 Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:26:00 -0000 To: "Doyle, Patrick" Cc: "'ecos-devel@sources.redhat.com'" , 'Andrew Dyer' Subject: Re: RedBoot patches regarding redboot_getc_terminate Message-ID: <20060518132621.GA11223@lunn.ch> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 From: Andrew Lunn X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 09:17:15AM -0400, Doyle, Patrick wrote: > Sometime since September of 2005, we updated our local eCos repository, > which includes Andrew Dyer's RedBoot patches to call > 'redboot_getc_terminate()' in various error scenarios. Since that time, we > have observed that anytime we use YMODEM to download code to our boards, it > terminates with an error message. > > I hate training myself to ignore error messages... it always comes back to > haunt me. > > So, I looked into this, and I see in 'load_elf_image()', near line 455 of > "load.c", there is a call to 'redboot_getc_terminate()' with an an argument > of 'true', indicating that the data transfer should be aborted. I changed > the abort flag back to 'false', and things have returned to normal for us. > > However, before I submit a formal patch undoing the work that Andrew did > (which had to do with terminating TFTP transfers gracefully), I thought I > would check in with folks, Andrew especially. > > What do folks think? Should I generate the one line patch (along with the 5 > line ChangeLog entry)? What happens to TFTP transfers with your change? Are they terminated gracefully? Or do they hang around until the server times out and kills them? Andrew