On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 01:38:48PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 12:33 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 04:51:13PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Wei Liu writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.8] ipxe: update to newer commit"):
> >>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 04:34:31PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>>> How did you choose 827dd1bfee67daa683935ce65316f7e0f057fe1c ?
> >>> That's the latest commit -- since upstream wants us to always use the
> >>> latest, I just picked that one.
> >>> I built that commit with gcc 4.9 and gcc 6.1, both compiled OK.
> >>> Realistically I don't expect issues with nic boot roms -- those are the
> >>> only things we really use AFAICT.
> >> Err, good. Well, perhaps we can wait a week and see if anyone reports
> >> hideous breakage in that ipxe revision ?
> > Sure. I will check ipxe mailing list in one week.
> FWIW, here is the patch that I used to pacify gcc.
Cherry-picking upstream patches is one thing, writing new ones is
another. This is essentially forking ipxe. I would avoid doing this
whenever I can.
Xen-devel mailing list