From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-la0-x22f.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::22f]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1X727H-0003n9-N5 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:45:58 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id mc6so816722lab.34 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 05:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:57:56 +0400 From: Antony Pavlov Message-Id: <20140715165756.53acb0e50c0390dfefb63b6b@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <53C25B45.7010101@gmail.com> <20140713145526.2cf6407fc9a17a4e8db89a50@gmail.com> <20140715110157.e505c7ad66ef5871b1ecf830@gmail.com> <20140715142753.d2c6424ea6b2d1b810b0de73@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: picotcp tftp support [was Adding IPv4 multicast support] To: Daniele Lacamera Cc: barebox On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:57:21 +0200 Daniele Lacamera wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Antony Pavlov = wrote: > = > >> I will be able to provide such an interface by using a similar > >> approach to what you used for ping (so via net_poll() routine called > >> in a loop), assuming that your posix-like interface expects blocking > >> calls for read/write operations. > > > > Alas! We can't use this approach for tftp because tftp is a FILESYSTEM = in barebox. > = > Then again, I'd like to know if your FS implementation actually needs > blocking call, and in case, where is the code supposed to block. Does > barebox have some kind of support for multiple threads, or a default > event loop where background operations can be added? Or are the FS > calls non blocking? AFAIK barebox does not support threads. Also all filesystem calls are blocking. > Sorry for asking dumb questions, I am not a barebox developer and I am > just trying to figure out what is your execution model. There > certainly is a way to integrate my TFTP implementation as soon as I > realize what is your model: as for instance we have blocking POSIX > socket calls implemented with and without an OS infrastructure, and we > are able to realize blocking calls on any systems, being baremetal or > multithtreaded. > = > Thanks > = > /D -- = --=A0 Best regards, =A0 Antony Pavlov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox