From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N8DCN-0008Op-KK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:25:23 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N8DCF-0008Lf-Vi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:25:21 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38700 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N8DCD-0008Kn-Py
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:25:14 -0500
Received: from mail-qy0-f194.google.com ([209.85.221.194]:36164)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1N8DCD-0000WX-JE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:25:13 -0500
Received: by qyk32 with SMTP id 32so472669qyk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4AFABB35.4070100@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:25:09 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] port over extboot from kvm
References: <1252401463-3249-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com>	<4AA66730.7040901@codemonkey.ws>	<200911091606.09783.paul@codesourcery.com>	<4AF843E7.50700@redhat.com>
	<4AF8461A.1040602@codemonkey.ws> <4AFAB5C6.8090607@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <4AFAB5C6.8090607@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>

Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> But why? Why do we have to emulate the entire HBA for the BIOS?
> The HBA is emulated, too, and just uses the bdrv interface
> internally anyway.
> So IMHO it makes far more sense to skip the HBA emulation in
> the BIOS completely and just use the bdrv interface directly
> here.
>   

If you use the bdrv interface (ala extboot), you couldn't boot via scsi 
passthrough.

VirtualBox implements a paravirtual SCSI bus to allow SCSI boot without 
having to implement a full LSI driver.  That's another way to solve the 
problem.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori