From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKCK7-0002RB-TP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:54:55 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKCK3-0002LM-Cl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:54:55 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42285 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NKCK3-0002LD-1F
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:54:51 -0500
Received: from mail-yx0-f188.google.com ([209.85.210.188]:56215)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1NKCK2-0006MQ-Ve
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:54:51 -0500
Received: by yxe26 with SMTP id 26so2950979yxe.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:54:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B2651B6.9040901@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:54:46 -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>
	<4B26475A.9040008@codemonkey.ws> <4B265114.2070604@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B265114.2070604@redhat.com>
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: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
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>

Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> 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.

Yes, they were 32k.  Two did not work though if you were also using 
extboot (which was 2k).  Still, etherboot was not a BEV rom so you 
couldn't make sense out of two of them anyway (since they hijack int19).

Regards,

Anthony Liguori