Re: [PATCH 0/7] pc-bios/s390-ccw: Merge the netboot loader into s390-ccw.img

[Thomas Huth]

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
> > code proved its usefulness, and the build system nowadays makes sure
> > that the SLOF module is checked out if you have a s390x compiler
> > available
> > for building the s390-ccw bios. In fact, the possibility to build the
> > s390-ccw.img without s390-netboot.img has been removed in commit
> > bf6903f6944f ("pc-bios/s390-ccw: always build network bootloader")
> > already.
> >
> > So it does not make too much sense anymore to keep the netboot code
> > in a separate binary. To make it easier to support a more flexible
> > boot process soon that supports more than one boot device via the
> > bootindex properties, let's finally merge the netboot code into the
> > main s390-ccw.img binary now.
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I find myself wondering about the side effects of the
> s/sclp_print/printf/ changes, but I haven't come up with anything I can
> put my finger on. Maybe something will come to me over the weekend, but
> all-in-all I like the looks of this.

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, it would be nice to get rid of sclp_print() and 
replace it by puts() or printf() in the whole code, but doing that right now 
would likely cause quite some conflicts for Jared with his patch series, so 
I'd rather postpone that to a later point in time.

> Reviewed-by: Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>

Thanks!

 Thomas