[SLOF] [PATCH 08/11] Do not link libnet to net-snk anymore

[Thomas Huth]

On 15.09.2016 05:57, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 14/09/16 23:52, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 14.09.2016 14:53, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>> On 14/09/16 19:18, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> On 14.09.2016 10:55, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
[...]
>>>>> After this change we do not have working "ping" - it is added in the next
>>>>> patch, not good for bisectability. Was this intentional?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's ugly to lose bisectability for one step here, but since "ping"
>>>> is IMHO not such an important command in SLOF, I decided that it is OK
>>>> to break it for one commit: If we want to add the Forth-to-C wrapper for
>>>> ping in libnet.code before this commit, I would need to write the
>>>> wrapper in a similar fashion as I've done it for the netboot() wrapper
>>>> in the previous patch, i.e. parse the string that has been created by
>>>> the forth code with:
>>>>
>>>>  s" ping " my-args $cat
>>>>
>>>> ... and then pass argc and the created argv[] array to the ping() function.
>>>> But since it's much easier for ping() to directly work with the my-args
>>>> parameter, I wanted to avoid that step.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well. Why did not you change netboot() the same way? :)
>>
>> I'm still planing to do this as an optimization later there, too. But
>> it's a bigger change for netboot() compared to ping(), since all that
>> $cat string handling in slof/fs/packages/obp-tftp.fs needs to be
>> disentangled, too, and the netboot() function itself accesses various
>> members of the argv[] array, so that code then also needs a rework, too.
>> That means the patch gets quite a bit bigger and maybe harder to review.
>> But if you prefer, I can also rework the patch to do that immediately
>> instead of a clean-up/optimization patch later.
> 
> Well, this does not fix any urgent bug so imho there is no hurry (is not
> there?) and I suppose I could wait till netboot() or/and ping() prototypes
> rework which would not break bisectability.

OK, I'm going to rework these patches.

> How much faster does QEMU in TCG take to boot with these patches?

Loading a file with ~ 42 MB via IPv4, with DHCP, takes ca. 1 minute and
23 seconds without my patches. With my patches, it only takes 28
seconds, so it's almost three times faster.

 Thomas