From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52629) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UVllr-0003Kv-7k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:45:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UVllp-0004VX-Ss for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:45:15 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]:43939) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UVllp-0004VT-NZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:45:13 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id wd20so3714314obb.21 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Anthony Liguori In-Reply-To: <1A48B5FE-4C79-4B0A-8EB3-BCD03ADA260A@suse.de> References: <1366978377-16823-1-git-send-email-dingel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1366978377-16823-4-git-send-email-dingel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5AAF60BF-6909-45E4-8D61-B9B8B21CA95F@suse.de> <517AA059.4000400@de.ibm.com> <3D4AF3D5-CFA4-4352-8203-2739B17185A5@suse.de> <517AA4E8.2000103@de.ibm.com> <80F88DB4-AA83-42B4-9FC3-07F27DE611D0@suse.de> <517AA72B.8050805@de.ibm.com> <1A48B5FE-4C79-4B0A-8EB3-BCD03ADA260A@suse.de> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:45:10 -0500 Message-ID: <87wqrpgs15.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/10] S390: Check Bootdevice Type List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf , Christian Borntraeger Cc: Christian Paro , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Dominik Dingel Alexander Graf writes: > On 26.04.2013, at 18:11, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> On 26/04/13 18:05, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 26.04.2013, at 18:01, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> >>>> On 26/04/13 17:48, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>>>> So I suggest to go with this patch and implement later on what we >>>>>> agree upon? >>>>> >>>>> I don't see how having "first device we find" is any better than a >>>>> rushed interface we need to agree on right before 1.5 hard freeze. >>>> >>>> Exactly, find first device isnt better ;-) >>>> See, the current code chooses the first subchannel that matches. This >>>> boils down to "a random disk" as soon as you have more than one. >>>> >>>> With this patch the user can at least specify the devno of the disk.It >>>> even works out of the box with libvirt. >>>> >>>> Let's just release 1.5 with the very simple one and then go for something >>>> awesome in the next version. >>>> >>>> Exactly - and having a list is more in the awesome area. Beiing able to >>>> specify the first disk and pass that in a register to the bios is of >>>> course not a full-features interface, but it works and can be changed. >>> >>> My main concern is backwards compatibility. If we introduce a command line >>> interface now, we have to support it forever. I'd rather only support one >>> interface, rather than 2 out of which one is only legacy for 1.5 compatibility. >> >> The cool thing is, that we dont introduce a command line interface in this patch. >> We just use the existing bootindex. > > Get an ack from Anthony on the bootindex thing and I'm fine with > pulling that in. So I don't see a problem with the no-fallback behavior (nor with it changing down the road), but the bootindex change would cause a regression on x86. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > > Alex