On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:40:24AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 17/03/2016 09:49, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > On 03/16/16 21:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 07:35:09PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > >>> OVMF uses this feature for a few flags. They are all called > >>> "opt/ovmf/...". I followed the advice in "docs/specs/fw_cfg.txt" (which > >>> shouldn't be surprising since I seem to have reviewed every patch for > >>> that file): > >> > >> Wait a second. You are saying upsteam OVMF puts files there. > > > > Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. OVMF consumes files that are put there by > > the user. > > I think what Michael is saying is that OVMF now has to worry about users > calling their own files "opt/ovmf/foo" and causing a conflict. > > I actually agree with his worry, but probably not with how to resolve > it. For me, the way to resolve it would be: > > 1) files should actually be named etc/ovmf/foo. OVMF could optionally > accept both the old and the new names for a while, you would decide > whether this is useful.
IOW if etc/ovmf exists, then ignore opt/ovmf? OK. > 2) in turn, because of (1) even the warning on opt/ should be removed. > > Paolo If we do 2) then users might put files in etc/ovmf/foo. -- MST
