On 8/27/24 8:43 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
I think it's maybe best if you'd include my patches at the top of your
patch series, so you could also rework them in case you need something
to be changed there. That way, we also do not have to rebuild the
binaries in the git repo multiple times and ju
On 26/08/2024 19.07, Jared Rossi wrote:
Hi Thomas,
I just wanted to get your thoughts on the status of the netboot loader merge.
I see that the first patch from this series was merged, but not the others. Is
there any issue with the rest of the changes?
Hi Jared,
there's no issue with that p
Hi Thomas,
I just wanted to get your thoughts on the status of the netboot loader merge.
I see that the first patch from this series was merged, but not the others. Is
there any issue with the rest of the changes?
I would like to put together a comprehensive rework for all device types that
repl
On 28/06/2024 20.01, Jared Rossi wrote:
On 6/24/24 1:55 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
[...]
I think it should be fine, both functions are basically just a wrapper
around the write() function in sclp.c, with sclp_print() being rather dumb
while printf() is doing the usual string formatting before w
On 6/24/24 1:55 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
[...]
I think it should be fine, both functions are basically just a wrapper
around the write() function in sclp.c, with sclp_print() being rather
dumb while printf() is doing the usual string formatting before
writing it out. I think in the long run,
On 21/06/2024 22.51, Eric Farman wrote:
On Fri, 2024-06-21 at 10:24 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
We originally built a separate binary for the netboot code since it
was considered as experimental and we could not be sure that the
necessary SLOF module had been checked out. Time passed, the netboot
On 6/21/24 4:24 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
We originally built a separate binary for the netboot code since it
was considered as experimental and we could not be sure that the
necessary SLOF module had been checked out. Time passed, the netboot
code proved its usefulness, and the build system nowa
On Fri, 2024-06-21 at 10:24 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> We originally built a separate binary for the netboot code since it
> was considered as experimental and we could not be sure that the
> necessary SLOF module had been checked out. Time passed, the netboot
> code proved its usefulness, and the
On 21/06/2024 11.39, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
[...]
docs/system/s390x/bootdevices.rst | 20 +++
pc-bios/s390-ccw/netboot.mak | 62 -
hw/s390x/ipl.h | 12 ++--
pc-bios/s390-ccw/cio.h | 2 +
pc-bios/s390-ccw/iplb.h
[...]
docs/system/s390x/bootdevices.rst | 20 +++
pc-bios/s390-ccw/netboot.mak | 62 -
hw/s390x/ipl.h| 12 ++--
pc-bios/s390-ccw/cio.h| 2 +
pc-bios/s390-ccw/iplb.h | 4 +-
pc-bios/s390-ccw/libc.h | 89
We originally built a separate binary for the netboot code since it
was considered as experimental and we could not be sure that the
necessary SLOF module had been checked out. Time passed, the netboot
code proved its usefulness, and the build system nowadays makes sure
that the SLOF module is chec
11 matches
Mail list logo
