On 26.04.2013, at 18:10, Dominik Dingel wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:05:02 +0200 > Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > >> >> On 26.04.2013, at 18:01, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >>> On 26/04/13 17:48, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>>>> So I suggest to go with this patch and implement later on what we >>>>> agree upon? >>>> >>>> I don't see how having "first device we find" is any better than a >>>> rushed interface we need to agree on right before 1.5 hard freeze. >>> >>> Exactly, find first device isnt better ;-) >>> See, the current code chooses the first subchannel that matches. This >>> boils down to "a random disk" as soon as you have more than one. >>> >>> With this patch the user can at least specify the devno of the disk.It >>> even works out of the box with libvirt. >>> >>> Let's just release 1.5 with the very simple one and then go for something >>> awesome in the next version. >>> >>> Exactly - and having a list is more in the awesome area. Beiing able to >>> specify the first disk and pass that in a register to the bios is of >>> course not a full-features interface, but it works and can be changed. >> >> My main concern is backwards compatibility. If we introduce a command line >> interface now, we have to support it forever. I'd rather only support one >> interface, rather than 2 out of which one is only legacy for 1.5 >> compatibility. > > We only enable, don't introduce the existing command line interface for > bootindex. The loadparm thing is already kind of list, as the loadparm is > stored with every device. > But as I wrote in the cover letter, we also could just for the start only > implement the bootindex.
The bootindex is the part that I'm reluctant about. I think it's the right way forward, but it touches generic code and generic infrastructure a few days before hard freeze. I don't think it's important enough to justify this. Alex
