On Wed 12 Aug 2009 17:30, Wolfgang Denk pondered: > Dear Ben Warren, > > In message <[email protected]> you wrote: > > > > Sure, if you don't mind re-compiling. I think it might be an > > opt-outable message via puts_quiet() > > It seems we start having a mess here, with features bound to other > features that have not even been agreeds about yet. > > I have to admit that I am no friend of this puts_quiet() thingy. > How much time do we really save on a normal system?
A small fraction. On a high speed network, with a low speed UART, and block sizes of 512 (default with BSD tftp). With printing hashes... uart Download 57600 6657 (ms) 2,734,393 (bytes/sec) Without 57600 6418 (ms) 2,836,219 (bytes/sec) As the network gets faster, and the UART gets slower - it will make a bigger difference. > Is this worth the inconsistent behaviour Most likely not. I'm not going to be offended if you NAK it. The better thing to do (IMHO) - would be to print out the proper number of hashes, depending on the size of the file (and implement RFC 2349 at the same time) - not the number of packets (which is what happens today)... > and the (IMHO much uglier) code? The code isn't uglier - one function is replaced with a different one. The name of the function is kind of crappy - but that is what I came up with late one evening... _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
