On 05.11.2012, at 12:34, Avik Sil wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 05:15 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 25.10.2012, at 22:57, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 25.10.2012, at 22:50, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25 October 2012 21:18, Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>> The other approach to this would be:
>>>>>
>>>>> static QEMUMachine pseries_machine = {
>>>>> .no_boot_order = 1,
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> Which I think is what Peter is suggesting. I'm not a huge fan of this
>>>>> because it's backwards logic but we already do this for a bunch of other
>>>>> things so I can't object too strongly to it.
>>>>
>>>> The other issue is that "cad" is a load of rubbish for half of these
>>>> boards, which don't have anything resembling the usual PC boot
>>>> devices and probably don't pay attention to -boot anyway. A patch
>>>> which only applied a boot order to boards which actually used it
>>>> would probably also be rather shorter.
>>>
>>> That's what v1 did, and it's ok, if it's mentioned explicitly and thought
>>> through properly. Just doing this without proper reasoning is bad, because
>>> you potentially change semantics of -boot if you miss anything. On OpenBIOS
>>> with PPC we actually make use of the -boot arguments for example.
>>>
>>> Hence having a common set of default options the way Anthony put it seems
>>> the most sane solution forward. It guarantees you don't break anything in
>>> patch 1. Then it goes in and actually changes the semantics for the one
>>> machine you want to change in patch 2.
>>
>> Anthony, please comment on which path you'd prefer. I'd rather like to have
>> a decision before creating more work.
>>
>>
> Anthony, Alexander, any comments on the above?
I'm really waiting for Anthony just like you do :). This is nothing I want to
make a call on.
Alex
