On 06/05/16 12:58, Jaroslaw Polok wrote: > Hi > > On 06/05/16 12:40, Dreamcat4 wrote: > >> >> Perhaps later down the line (once more people get onboard and can start >> using it), then this pxe UEFI mode can be improved even further. Either >> buy some fresh eyes coming along to fix problems in ipxe.efi, or else >> here in the dnsmasq behaviour. Or both. But we need to make it easier >> for those guys to run it at least, so can see ahead to the next problem. > > In case you would be interested: > > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/2016q1/010383.html > > That is my version of the patch, using a configuration option > to allow more fine-grained control on how systems boot > (by optionally matching by tag and/or architecture). > > We are using that patch in production since two months > successfully booting all PXE/UEFI systems (x64 and aarch64) > we have used so far (about 10 different x64 and 3 different > aarch64 systems, plus qemu-kvm with Tianocore firmware) > > Dear Simon: would it be possible to review and include one > of this patches in dnsmasq please ? >
Yes, That's the last thing on my list to do before I start to release 2.76. You and Dreamcat are going to have to help me though, since I don't have a usable test environment for this stuff, and my PXE knowledge is buried under several years of other stuff. My main question is, is there a way to make this work without needing the --pxe-skip-menu option. I appreciate that this engages a workaround for buggy UEFI netboot implementations, but what's wrong with doing that automatically when there's only one possible boot? Are we loosing functionality (maybe with a hypothetical fully working BIOS) by doing that? Cheers, Simon. _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
