On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 03:56:35PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/21/16 14:25, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> > wrote:
> >>> Sure, do we know if that ICC compatible? Do we care? There are a
> >>> series of ICC hacks put in place on
On 01/21/16 14:25, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> wrote:
>>> Sure, do we know if that ICC compatible? Do we care? There are a
>>> series of ICC hacks put in place on ipxe's original solution which
>>> I've folded in, it seems that works but if
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
wrote:
>> Sure, do we know if that ICC compatible? Do we care? There are a
>> series of ICC hacks put in place on ipxe's original solution which
>> I've folded in, it seems that works but if we care about ICC those
>> folks should perhaps
On 01/21/16 14:25, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> wrote:
>>> Sure, do we know if that ICC compatible? Do we care? There are a
>>> series of ICC hacks put in place on ipxe's original solution which
>>> I've folded in, it
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
wrote:
>> Sure, do we know if that ICC compatible? Do we care? There are a
>> series of ICC hacks put in place on ipxe's original solution which
>> I've folded in, it seems that works but if we care about ICC those
>>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 03:56:35PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/21/16 14:25, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> > wrote:
> >>> Sure, do we know if that ICC compatible? Do we care? There are a
> >>> series of ICC
6 matches
Mail list logo