From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46061) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agWA4-0000uu-Mw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:32:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agW9z-0004S2-Mm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:32:16 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43387) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agW9z-0004Rb-HH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:32:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:32:06 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20160317133036-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <20160316181541.GG12454@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU> <56E9A75D.60603@redhat.com> <20160316222436-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <56EA6F7C.6090700@redhat.com> <56EA7B88.8020004@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56EA7B88.8020004@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] vl.c: disallow command line fw cfg without opt/ List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: "Gabriel L. Somlo" , kraxel@redhat.com, Laszlo Ersek , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:40:24AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 17/03/2016 09:49, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > On 03/16/16 21:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 07:35:09PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > >>> OVMF uses this feature for a few flags. They are all called > >>> "opt/ovmf/...". I followed the advice in "docs/specs/fw_cfg.txt" (which > >>> shouldn't be surprising since I seem to have reviewed every patch for > >>> that file): > >> > >> Wait a second. You are saying upsteam OVMF puts files there. > > > > Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. OVMF consumes files that are put there by > > the user. > > I think what Michael is saying is that OVMF now has to worry about users > calling their own files "opt/ovmf/foo" and causing a conflict. > > I actually agree with his worry, but probably not with how to resolve > it. For me, the way to resolve it would be: > > 1) files should actually be named etc/ovmf/foo. OVMF could optionally > accept both the old and the new names for a while, you would decide > whether this is useful. IOW if etc/ovmf exists, then ignore opt/ovmf? OK. > 2) in turn, because of (1) even the warning on opt/ should be removed. > > Paolo If we do 2) then users might put files in etc/ovmf/foo. -- MST