Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:50:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:50:29 -0500 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:57605 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:50:10 -0500 Subject: Re: LILO and serial speeds over 9600 To: jas88@cam.ac.uk (James Sutherland) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:50:04 +0000 (GMT) Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), hpa@zytor.com (H. Peter Anvin), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "James Sutherland" at Feb 12, 2001 10:46:57 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > It's not a huge undertaking, I know, but UDP will probably still be > a bit simpler. Turn the question around: would using TCP bring any real > benefits, in a system which will only be used to shift a few kb each boot > time? Im not convinced it will be any smaller by the time your UDP code has dealt with retransmits, out of order acks, and backoff. > for the kernel-side code: once you have a fully-fledged IP stack, why not > use it. There's no reason the server couldn't support both, and machines > would just use whichever was more appropriate at the time. The IP layer is easy. Thats about 30 lines of code for a minimal IP. You'll need more code to implement ARP, which you will require - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://vger.kernel.org/lkml/