From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52286) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQ7UQ-0005FD-Q2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 03:34:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQ7UM-0006WD-Rw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 03:34:18 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37390) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQ7UM-0006W2-LX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 03:34:14 -0400 References: <1498564100-10045-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:34:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 00/14] Implement network booting directly into the s390-ccw BIOS List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Farhan Ali , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Christian Borntraeger Cc: Alexander Graf , David Hildenbrand , Jens Freimann , Eric Farman On 27.06.2017 18:50, Farhan Ali wrote: [...] >> The patches are still in a rough shape, but before I continue here, >> I though I'd get some feedback first. Specifically: >> >> - This adds a lot of additional code to the s390-ccw firmware (and >> the binary is afterwards three times as big as before, 75k instead >> of 25k) ... is that still acceptable? > > IMHO 75k is not that huge compared to the Linux based netboot image. True. I was just surprised that the size was now three times as big as before, but when you compare it to the huge size of a Linux kernel + initrd, 75k are of course close to nothing. >> - Is it OK to require loading an .INS file first? Or does anybody >> have a better idea how to load multiple files (kernel, initrd, >> etc. ...)? >> >> - The code from SLOF uses a different coding style (TABs instead >> of space) ... is it OK to keep that coding style here so we >> can share patches between SLOF and s390-ccw more easily? >> >> - The code only supports TFTP (via UDP) ... I think that is OK for >> most use-cases, but if we ever want to support network booting >> via HTTP or something else that is based on TCP, we would need to >> use something else instead... Should we maybe rather head towards >> grub2, petitboot or something different instead? > > Can't it be extended to support HTTP boot? Not so easily, since you need TCP support for this first. And TCP is way more complex to implement when compared with UDP. Thomas