On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 03:55:17PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 14:55 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
> >> 4) If -boot is specified, the parameter should alter the contents of
> >>NVRAM to change the boot order to what is speci
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:40:45AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 19.10.2012, at 10:24, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:32:54AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 18.10.2012, at 03:18, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 2012-10-18
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 09:21 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > That's true to an extent. However, I vehemently disagree that it's
> > arbitrary which one gets the new option. Neither -boot nor bootindex=
> > alter any persistent data now and they should not suddenly start doing
> > so.
>
> That'
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 18.10.2012, at 03:18, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:09 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
>>
> That's horrible; if you use -boot just once it will clobber a
> persistent NVRAM's boot order. I see tha
On 19 October 2012 15:21, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> David Gibson writes:
>> That's true to an extent. However, I vehemently disagree that it's
>> arbitrary which one gets the new option. Neither -boot nor bootindex=
>> alter any persistent data now and they should not suddenly start doing
>> so.
David Gibson writes:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:32:54AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18.10.2012, at 03:18, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:09 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
>> >
>> That's horrible; if you use -boot just once it will clobber a
On 19.10.2012, at 10:24, David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:32:54AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18.10.2012, at 03:18, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:09 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
>>>
>> That's horrible; if you use -boot just
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:32:54AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 18.10.2012, at 03:18, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:09 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> >
> That's horrible; if you use -boot just once it will clobber a
> persistent NVRAM's boot o
On 18.10.2012, at 03:18, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:09 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
>
That's horrible; if you use -boot just once it will clobber a
persistent NVRAM's boot order. I see that a means of changing the
default boot order from management
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:09 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > That's horrible; if you use -boot just once it will clobber a
> > > persistent NVRAM's boot order. I see that a means of changing the
> > > default boot order from management tools is desirable, but that
> > > shouldn't be the normal be
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 01:17:28PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> David Gibson writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:55:21PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
> >> We discussed nvram and it's interaction with boot order in today's KVM
> >> call. Here's the outcome. This list is completely
David Gibson writes:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:55:21PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> We discussed nvram and it's interaction with boot order in today's KVM
>> call. Here's the outcome. This list is completely incremental so it's
>> fine to start with 1-4, for instance, as long as we e
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:07:53AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 14:55 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> > 4) If -boot is specified, the parameter should alter the contents of
> >NVRAM to change the boot order to what is specified by -boot.
> >
> > 5) If ,boot
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 06:12:22PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Peter Maydell writes:
>
> > On 16 October 2012 20:55, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
> >> We discussed nvram and it's interaction with boot order in today's KVM
> >> call. Here's the outcome. This list is completely incremental so
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:55:21PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> We discussed nvram and it's interaction with boot order in today's KVM
> call. Here's the outcome. This list is completely incremental so it's
> fine to start with 1-4, for instance, as long as we eventually get
> to 6.
Sorry
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 16 October 2012 20:55, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> We discussed nvram and it's interaction with boot order in today's KVM
>> call. Here's the outcome. This list is completely incremental so it's
>> fine to start with 1-4, for instance, as long as we eventually get t
Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
> On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 14:55 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> 4) If -boot is specified, the parameter should alter the contents of
>>NVRAM to change the boot order to what is specified by -boot.
>>
>> 5) If ,bootorder is specified, it should take predence
On 16 October 2012 20:55, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> We discussed nvram and it's interaction with boot order in today's KVM
> call. Here's the outcome. This list is completely incremental so it's
> fine to start with 1-4, for instance, as long as we eventually get to 6.
>
> Today, on x86, we imp
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 14:55 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> 4) If -boot is specified, the parameter should alter the contents of
>NVRAM to change the boot order to what is specified by -boot.
>
> 5) If ,bootorder is specified, it should take predence over -boot.
>
> 6) ,bootorder= should a
19 matches
Mail list logo
