From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKBdO-00038x-Bb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:10:46 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKBdJ-00037U-OP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:10:46 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56532 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NKBdJ-00037J-Fr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:10:41 -0500
Received: from mail-gx0-f222.google.com ([209.85.217.222]:44799)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1NKBdJ-0000Nf-By
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:10:41 -0500
Received: by gxk22 with SMTP id 22so3203113gxk.17
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:10:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B26475A.9040008@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:10:34 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: qdev property bug?
References: <20091213200259.GB25615@redhat.com> <4B260683.8000506@redhat.com>
	<20091214093414.GA30459@redhat.com> <4B26090B.8010707@redhat.com>
	<20091214094406.GB32140@redhat.com> <4B261082.4030806@redhat.com>
	<20091214105912.GA32355@redhat.com>
	<1913984B-EF3F-4974-830A-DF97B8410AA6@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <1913984B-EF3F-4974-830A-DF97B8410AA6@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "glommer@redhat.com" <glommer@redhat.com>, Sebastian Herbszt <herbszt@gmx.de>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>

The old behavior with two different nic types and -boot n was "undefined".

The old etherboot roms were quite large.  To large to fit more than one 
(certainly not two).

> How does real hw handle this? I'm pretty sure most servers these days 
> use more option rom space than this. They usually have some onboard 
> raid bios, external storage, on-board nic, pci nic, ...

You can disable rom loading for individual cards.

> So there must be some way to just have more option rom space. 
> Implementing anything else would just be a waste of time. It'd break 
> again when ppl do device assignment.

gPXE is freakishly large as far as option roms go :-)

Regards,

Anthony Liguori