On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Joshua Oreman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Thomas Horsten <[email protected]> wrote: >> That would probably be good. Again the wait objects I mentioned >> earlier, or even a simple callback in the socket structure would be an >> idea. > > Keep in mind that gPXE has extremely limited code size constraints; I > suspect this is why Stefan didn't want to use an actual process for > the TFTP fix when something lighter-weight would do.
Yes. I like the idea of a wait queue, it's a powerful primitive. However it is not essential to have it, and that's how gPXE manages to pack so much punch into 64 KB - it focuses on the essentials. > My opinion on the > ARP issue: it's only going to get hit once per TFTP server, which is a > lot less than once per file, and can probably be ignored barring > evidence to the contrary. Good point. Our ARP cache never expires entries. Stefan _______________________________________________ gPXE mailing list [email protected] http://etherboot.org/mailman/listinfo/gpxe
