On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 09:40:41AM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:09:17AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > - read four bytes from under the fw_cfg selector QEMU_CFG_KERNEL_SIZE > > > (0x0008), > > > - if it is zero, return -1 --> no kernel boot requested, > > > - if it is nonzero, return 0 --> which means "top priority". > > > > > > In other words, I agree with: > > > > > > > - option_rom[nb_option_roms].bootindex = 0; > > > > + option_rom[nb_option_roms].bootindex = 1; > > The bootindex in QEMU is not visible in the firmware, so if the rest > of patch 6 is dropped then the above should be dropped as well. > > > Hmm. That makes the boot order undefined for "qemu -kernel foo -device > > virtio-blk,drive=bar,bootindex=1" when using an old seabios. I don't > > think this is a good idea. > > Wouldn't that make the bootorder undefined everywhere? What does it > mean to use -kernel and specify a bootorder?
I think it is pretty meaningless - I've always considered the use of -kernel vs -boot / bootindex= to be mutually exclusive. I think that libvirt leaves out -boot entirely if it adds -kernel. If the kernel specified via -kernel doesn't boot for some reason (corrupt image or wrong arch image or something) then I think users would reasonably expect QEMU to not boot, rather than fallback to non-kernel boot approach. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
