From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9434 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2007 14:17:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 9424 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2007 14:17:43 -0000 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; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:17:39 +0000 Received: from lunn by londo.lunn.ch with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1J4zjp-0002lh-00; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:17:33 +0100 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:11:00 -0000 From: Andrew Lunn To: ?yvind Harboe Cc: eCos Disuss Message-ID: <20071219141733.GD5944@lunn.ch> Mail-Followup-To: ?yvind Harboe , eCos Disuss References: <20071219112458.GB5944@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ECOS] Re: Improving TFTP performance X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00117.txt.bz2 > + cdl_option CYGPKG_NET_TFTPD_CLIENT_GET_PACKETSIZE { > + display "TFTP protocol allows negotiation of bigger packets. > + Requires server which supports RFC 2348 blksize negotiation." > + flavor data > + default_value 512 > + legal_values 512 to 65464 > + description " > + tftp blksize egotiation support. >512 byte block sizes improves > + tftp GET performance" > + } The display should be kept to one line maximum. Put all the rest on the description lines. You should also say that the default value of 512 causes this to be disabled. It might even be better to change the flavor of this to booldata, so it can be enabled/disabled and the value set. It then makes your code cleaner. > + // try without negotiating packet size. The serves that do > + // not support options negotiation would normally just ignore > + // the options and thus this code path will probably never be > + // executed I took a very quick look at RFC 1350. I don't see it defining what to do when the RRQ has extra parameters. It does not say they should be ignored. So sending back an error is acceptable. That means i don't like this comment. Andrew -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss