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, Can you please look into this since 1.4 window is open now?
Regards,
Avik
>
> Alex
>
>
>
