From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 1 13:30:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1D35E02; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 13:30:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7416E2CCB; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 13:30:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jre-mbp.elischer.org (etroy.elischer.org [121.45.232.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s51DU6tW078105 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 1 Jun 2014 06:30:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <538B2AD8.5050608@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 21:30:00 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rick Macklem , John Howie Subject: Re: Patches for BOOTP/DHCP code to support Windows Server DHCP References: <1468927196.9638531.1401624102908.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <1468927196.9638531.1401624102908.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 13:30:18 -0000 On 6/1/14, 8:01 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: > John Howie wrote: >> [...] > Actually, I tend to think that using the code in sys/nfs/bootp_subr.c > is preferable to using the NFS stuff in stand that pxeboot does. > > The only reason I know for pxeboot doing the NFS stuff and filling in > the nfsv3_diskless structure is historical. (Or that's what most people > use for x86, so it would be a POLA violation if it breaks, if you prefer.) > (Basically, the code in sys/nfs/bootp_subr.c is easier to maintain than the > stand alone NFS client pxeboot uses.) > > As such, I don't think this work is necessary, rick it's probably worth having both options John. great work BTW. > >> Regards, >> >> John >> >> john@thehowies.com (personal) | jhowie@email.arizona.edu (academic) | >> j.howie@napier.ac.uk (academic) | jhowie@cloudsecurityalliance.org >> (work) >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > >