From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44830) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TSfHY-0007D6-8p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:40:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TSfHW-0002dd-NH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:40:52 -0400 Received: from e23smtp05.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.147]:36058) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TSfHW-0002dB-42 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:40:50 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp05.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:38:54 +1000 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:41:38 +1100 From: David Gibson Message-ID: <20121029024138.GE27695@truffula.fritz.box> References: <1351175895-27131-1-git-send-email-aviksil@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1351175895-27131-2-git-send-email-aviksil@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <877gqetiep.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v2 1/2] Make default boot order machine specific List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Anthony Liguori , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 25 October 2012 21:18, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > The other approach to this would be: > > > > static QEMUMachine pseries_machine = { > > .no_boot_order = 1, > > }; > > > > Which I think is what Peter is suggesting. I'm not a huge fan of this > > because it's backwards logic but we already do this for a bunch of other > > things so I can't object too strongly to it. > > The other issue is that "cad" is a load of rubbish for half of these > boards, which don't have anything resembling the usual PC boot > devices and probably don't pay attention to -boot anyway. A patch > which only applied a boot order to boards which actually used it > would probably also be rather shorter. True, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect people other than the maintainers of those boards to make that judgement. The correct approach is to keep the same behaviour for now, then let individual boards change away from it. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson