On 26/04/13 20:01, Dominik Dingel wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:36:11 -0500 > Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > >> Dominik Dingel <din...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> >>> Currently only devices with a positive boot index will be pushed in the >>> fw_boot_order queue, so if no boot index at all will be specified, >>> the queue ends up empty. >>> >>> Instead we push exactly as docs/bootindex.txt says the devices with >>> the lowest possible boot priority at the tail of the queue, >>> because we give them the highest available boot index. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Dingel <din...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> Wouldn't this break the ability to say: "don't every try to boot from >> this device?" >> >> As an example, some people want to force PXE boot to not be tried on >> certain networks. >> >> Regards, >> >> Anthony Liguori > > That is correct, hmm. The thing is, if we don't submit a bootindex, we will > assign -1 in virtio-blk and virtio-net. This would forbid that the device > would be booted from. > Where docs/bootindex.txt says: if a device got no bootindex, it gets the > lowest possibly priority...
Hmm, reading all this, I changed my mind :-) I think we should just leave out patch 1 for now. Anthony brought up a valid point, we want to be able to specify for a device "never boot from it". >From an s390 point of view, it would even make sense to say "If the user does not provide a boot index, then the system wont boot. We leave the system in stopped state." Predictability is more important than clever guessing in this environment. Christian
