On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 09:07:17AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 at 08:47, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 08:15:25AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 at 06:10, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 at 13:03, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 at 16:32, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 05:31:30PM +0300, Mikhail Kshevetskiy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Legacy TCP stack is bad. Here are some of the known issues: > > > > > > > * tcp packet from other connection can break a current one > > > > > > > * tcp send sequence always starts from zero > > > > > > > * bad tcp options processing > > > > > > > * strange assumptions on packet size for selective acknowledge > > > > > > > * tcp interface assumes one of the two scenarios: > > > > > > > - data downloading from remote host to a board > > > > > > > - request-response exchange with a small packets > > > > > > > so it's not possible to upload large amount of data from the > > > > > > > board to remote host. > > > > > > > * wget test generate bad tcp stream, test should fail but it > > > > > > > passes instead > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This series of patches fixes all of the above issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > I know Peter asked on the last one, but I want to ask as well. With > > > > > > lwIP > > > > > > merged, why do we want to add features to the old stack? I can see > > > > > > fixing issues, but not adding new functionality as well. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's apply this. It has tests and the old stack is still used by a > > > > > lot of boards. At present lwip is only used on one. There is more work > > > > > to do on the new stack, including finishing off the sandbox > > > > > implementation. > > > > > > > > I agree with applying the fixes pieces, I do not agree with apply the > > > > HTTP server pieces. This series should actually be split into 3 > > > > > > But what is your objection? > > > > > > I would much rather just apply it ASAP. It has already gone through 12 > > > versions, during which lwip has been prepared and applied. > > > > Yes, and to be blunt, the first bit of feedback I provided was "can you > > please look at the lwIP series instead?". > > > > > The HTTP server is a useful feature and we should be able to use it to > > > test networking in U-Boot in a more self-contained and performant > > > manner. > > > > I very much do not want to add more features to the legacy TCP stack. > > We're likely, long term, to still need some cut-back version of the old > > stack for the limited SPL cases. > > This series has been in progress for a long time and it seems unfair > to just drop it, with one one board on the new stack.
Well, I continue to not say that we should drop the series, but that we should take the fixes and not the new features. Because as far as I can tell, the current TCP stack is in such a shape that it's not production-usable anywhere and so the number of users argument is irrelevant. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
