From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKCHz-00084Y-Ao
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:52:43 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKCHu-0007xl-Mf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:52:42 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42241 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NKCHu-0007xZ-Hd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:52:38 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24366)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1NKCHu-00066A-87
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:52:38 -0500
Message-ID: <4B265114.2070604@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:52:04 +0100
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
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>
	<4B26475A.9040008@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4B26475A.9040008@codemonkey.ws>
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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "glommer@redhat.com" <glommer@redhat.com>, Sebastian Herbszt <herbszt@gmx.de>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>

On 12/14/09 15:10, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> 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).

Two worked with the etherboot roms.

>> 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 :-)

With gPXE only one rom fits in.

cheers,
   Gerd