On Tuesday 17 November 2009, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On 11/17/09 13:36, Paul Brook wrote: > >>> In fact I'd much prefer to see extboot rewritten to just virtio-block. > >> > >> Hmm, I'd prefer something which is *not* used by the guest OS, so it is > >> a pure bootloader thing. When using it to boot from scsi you don't want > >> to have the disk show up twice (as virtio and scsi) in the guest. > > > > You're assuming noone ever writes OS support for extboot... > > Which would be almost as silly as writing OS support for bios-int13 ...
Not entirely. int13 is a software interface, extboot is a hardware interface. Look at it the other way round: If I already have my low performance boot device exposed via extboot (on an otherwise diskless client), why should I have to also expose it via virtio-blk just so that the guest can access it for installing kernel upgrades. Paul
