On 16 October 2012 20:55, Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > We discussed nvram and it's interaction with boot order in today's KVM > call. Here's the outcome. This list is completely incremental so it's > fine to start with 1-4, for instance, as long as we eventually get to 6. > > Today, on x86, we implement up to (5) but we don't persist NVRAM. > > 1) We should modify QEMUMachine to specify that a machine does not want > a default boot order. Ideally, this would be done by adding a new > default_boot_order that is set to "cad" explicitly in all machines > allowing a machine to remove that entry. At any rate, this allows a > machine to receive a NULL boot order when -boot isn't used and take an > appropriate action accordingly. > > 2) In the absence of a persistent NVRAM, a ephemeral NVRAM should be > generated with a reasonable default boot order. > > 3) In the absence of -boot or ,bootindex=, the system should boot from > order specified in NVRAM. > > 4) If -boot is specified, the parameter should alter the contents of > NVRAM to change the boot order to what is specified by -boot. > > 5) If ,bootorder is specified, it should take predence over -boot. > > 6) ,bootorder= should also alter the contents of NVRAM to determine the > boot order.
What's the rationale for 6? It seems a bit odd for a command line option to randomly mangle the NVRAM... -- PMM
