From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:09:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:09:02 -0500 Received: from smtp01ffm.de.uu.net ([192.76.144.150]:54072 "EHLO smtp01ffm.de.uu.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:08:47 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Tobias Wollgam Organization: Materna GmbH To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: UNDI/PXE for 2.4.x available? Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:08:43 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] In-Reply-To: <20020204154633.E2BC267F3@penelope.materna.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Encoded: Changed encoding from 8bit for 7bit transmission Message-Id: <20020204170844.2AB5667F1@penelope.materna.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org We want to install PCs over ethernet with PXE. For the first boot from net we have nothing than the network, we don't know the hardware, so an UNDI in the kernel would be perfect. IMHO > I think you'll have that problem with any UNDI driver; in either case > I suspect that (a) performance will stink no matter what That's ok for the things we will do. > and (b) it won't work properly with SMP unless you apply really > heavy locking. Does it matter in our case? > The PXE people at Intel really seems enamored with the idea of using > the UNDI stack all the way into the operating system; We need it not to run an operating system, we need it for the installation of an operating system. On the other hand, UNDI will deliver a network driver for all PXE-cards that come up before there is any direct hardware support. (Ok, then b matters) -- Tobias Wollgam * Softwaredevelopment * Business Unit Information MATERNA GmbH Information & Communications Vosskuhle 37 * 44141 Dortmund http://www.materna.de