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
10 matches
Mail list logo
