Hi, Gerd
> > > > > > > I think it is ok to allow only *changing* the bootindex.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's no problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > But then yoy always will have a old entry where you can take the
> > > > > suffix
> > > > > from, and you don't need the suffix as parameter for t
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Gonglei (Arei)
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:16 PM
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/7] bootindex: add modify_boot_device_path function
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gerd Hoffmann [mailto:kra...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:02 PM
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gerd Hoffmann [mailto:kra...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] bootindex: add modify_boot_device_path function
>
> Hi,
>
> > > > > I think it is ok to allow only *changing* the bootindex.
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, t
Hi,
> > > > I think it is ok to allow only *changing* the bootindex.
> > > >
> > > Yes, that's no problem.
> >
> > But then yoy always will have a old entry where you can take the suffix
> > from, and you don't need the suffix as parameter for the monitor
> > command.
> >
> No, optional.
>
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Gerd Hoffmann [mailto:kra...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] bootindex: add modify_boot_device_path function
>
> > > I think it is ok to allow only *changing* the bootindex.
> > >
> > Yes, that's no problem.
> > I think it is ok to allow only *changing* the bootindex.
> >
> Yes, that's no problem.
But then yoy always will have a old entry where you can take the suffix
from, and you don't need the suffix as parameter for the monitor
command.
cheers,
Gerd
> -Original Message-
> From: Gerd Hoffmann [mailto:kra...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 4:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] bootindex: add modify_boot_device_path function
>
> Hi,
>
> > > ... because you can just copy the suffix from the old entry here,
> > > instead of ex
Hi,
> > ... because you can just copy the suffix from the old entry here,
> > instead of expecting the caller pass it in.
> >
> Okay, agreed.
>
> But we should also think about the situation which a device don't have
> old entry in global fw_boot_order list.
Throw an error?
I think it is ok
Hi, Gerd
> -Original Message-
> From: Gerd Hoffmann [mailto:kra...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 5:46 PM
>
> Hi,
>
> > +void modify_boot_device_path(int32_t bootindex, DeviceState *dev,
> > + const char *suffix)
> > +{
> > +FWBootEntry *node, *i
Hi,
> +void modify_boot_device_path(int32_t bootindex, DeviceState *dev,
> + const char *suffix)
> +{
> +FWBootEntry *node, *i;
> +
> +assert(dev != NULL || suffix != NULL);
> +
> +QTAILQ_FOREACH(i, &fw_boot_order, link) {
> +if (i->bootindex == booti
From: Gonglei
When we want to change one device's bootindex, we
should lookup the device and change the bootindex.
it is simply that remove it from the global boot list,
then re-add it, sorted by new bootindex. If the new
bootindex has already used by another device just
throw an error.
Signed-o
11 matches
Mail list logo
