On 05.11.2024 19:02, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 at 15:15, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> 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. > I highlighted my concerns about it all being together all the way back > in v1, the fact that it should be 3 separate sets of patches. > > The fact that it's at v12 is irrelevant and should never be used as a > reason just merge a patch set, it makes no senses. > >> 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. > LWIP has a HTTP server which is widely tested, that is what should be > used *if* we have to have one, I still have yet to see a useful > usecase, and no CI is not because ultimately how useful is testing > against ourselves, the fact is testing the HTTP client against apache > or nginx is a better real world usecase because the reality is that > U-Boot being the client and the server in that use case isn't really a > real world use case. We are using httpd server in u-boot for the emergency firmware upgrade purposes. It have the following reasons: * No need to install a special tools like tftp server on clients PC. Only a browser is required. * It much easy for support and client both -- the less specific knowledge is required the easy recovery process.
Mikhail
