From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0708.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe40::708]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 554151A1DF4 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from AT5PR84MB0291.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.162.138.25) by AT5PR84MB0290.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.162.138.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.549.15; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:44:44 +0000 Received: from AT5PR84MB0291.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([10.162.138.25]) by AT5PR84MB0291.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([10.162.138.25]) with mapi id 15.01.0549.027; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:44:44 +0000 From: "Cohen, Eugene" To: "Wu, Jiaxin" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Thread-Topic: IP4 Config Troubles with DHCP Thread-Index: AdHzLtnEw2gfDCBbQ1OtxXknLLKMhQAabX6gANlk4IAAFmGWYAAnrHyQ Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:44:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <895558F6EA4E3B41AC93A00D163B7274137C5EF1@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <895558F6EA4E3B41AC93A00D163B7274137C7C7A@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <895558F6EA4E3B41AC93A00D163B7274137C7C7A@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=eugene@hp.com; x-originating-ip: [15.65.254.4] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: aab98fd4-12b7-4c04-bbd5-08d3c60dc604 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AT5PR84MB0290; 6:lOQrQ9czZq03TBZcj9dmDdJOwZ5/DFq/3khT5VWB/NPXGEZx22MITV2enDgLIXHLPRDDB+23/4bb18w4P6p8Ry86oyQhe0KLIjRRM/RzFe0C+qnBlaCb1F8ynHIjr2tIoA9ysOwm+G78EiJf4CGOh1RVv6c5AipMEaa/KynUhjjoHIz9qmhMhmtJYVYJl2ZBNE17VUvT+4lie1dCrgsJN9dul3Yji+QOpkmGEfhjmuQWjV0qp9r0hH8yO4E+zDceCgqUApcSD50lsHAsNWhI0E/nw3G6GEyoxgO5yniBbRw=; 5:JYiYLpQvDJa6UcX+iAzKtVSBfM24aEE1kXr3ExAgi8+oz+kvOpe6Ks1cogVjgQLMmPUEpoup6aF9fSW9tRwUXUB1S8bCZqnR8RqvPBhKw0kjaFnB11zkU2I0tSZEhOaLIfvPEbmYmHy7bhKA1JftnQ==; 24:aKQ5f18XL/+Rl3EJ+jEhYbbORqx21rrr3G+/iEhXkCEL+m1xCNkZ4YuSwx6BtT5jjWqJsQgOc9IquAiStUCdXCCKeUwgEHBcKntEbMvf2T4=; 7:T5CvBCrcOfDWRgUuqWCmVSIOyKbQHDxZ+fsYhiVJLZyhfn8lbDOOLoeDd33yrUwpIWUFnnqgM6h21rLvvL0yOBH5MsxoU8r/iYP8RSD41pCaRGTDBUx615bUgKg5AYeDahEc8u2P/avUXvaSX/lI5PHLk+p6qf4kt8KkLoabNFLbe7JdZac90CJyNio0bJgySu1olOTZ6qiLQsCOZEn/PJrinxv4pqBkYL2KHGVnCBRCBOMhPHxzNzhvrFsCEYdd x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AT5PR84MB0290; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(278428928389397); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:AT5PR84MB0290; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AT5PR84MB0290; x-forefront-prvs: 0036736630 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(189002)(6602003)(199003)(92566002)(8676002)(81156014)(81166006)(33656002)(2906002)(7846002)(54356999)(86362001)(5002640100001)(10400500002)(66066001)(87936001)(2900100001)(11100500001)(3280700002)(77096005)(2501003)(3660700001)(68736007)(50986999)(102836003)(99286002)(2950100001)(101416001)(8936002)(9686002)(76176999)(586003)(6116002)(3846002)(5001770100001)(93886004)(105586002)(189998001)(7736002)(122556002)(106356001)(7696003)(107886002)(305945005)(74316002)(97736004)(19627235001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AT5PR84MB0290; H:AT5PR84MB0291.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: hp.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: hp.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Aug 2016 19:44:44.6003 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: ca7981a2-785a-463d-b82a-3db87dfc3ce6 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AT5PR84MB0290 Subject: Re: IP4 Config Troubles with DHCP X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:44:50 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jiaxin, > Yeah. When I was drafting the UDP APP to test the new fix, I found the > same case you mentioned. We must issue another UDP Configure () to > clean the previous state once the Ip4Mode.IsConfigured is TRUE. So, > the above example is not accurate with my the current > implementation:(. But I'm still not recommend to loop the UDP > configuration every time if Ip4Mode.IsConfigured is false. The right > behavior for UDP/TCP is 1) timer check the Ip4Mode.IsConfigured, 2) > Once Ip4Mode.IsConfigured is TRUE, reconfigure the instance again. > Sorry for the above example was troubling you. Also use UDP as > example, correct as below: Can't we just call this a defect and make it so the first Configure() that = returns IsConfigured=3DTRUE works? It seems much safer to handle this in t= he stack than to expect hundreds or thousands of different network applicat= ions and services to try to implement this sequence correctly. I don't see where in the UEFI spec it states that you must call Configure(c= fg) Configure(NULL) Configure(cfg) just to make it work... Thanks, Eugene