From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKH5O-0002NC-0w
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:00:02 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKH5J-0002KC-4a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:00:01 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41525 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NKH5I-0002K6-Ud
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:59:57 -0500
Received: from mail-yx0-f188.google.com ([209.85.210.188]:59430)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1NKH5H-0005Ra-NO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:59:56 -0500
Received: by yxe26 with SMTP id 26so3274770yxe.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:59:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B269933.3010906@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:59:47 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: qdev property bug?
References: <20091214105912.GA32355@redhat.com>
	<1913984B-EF3F-4974-830A-DF97B8410AA6@suse.de>
	<20091214132423.GB973@redhat.com> <4B263F23.2090601@suse.de>
	<4B2647AF.1030605@codemonkey.ws> <20091214141143.GA1360@redhat.com>
	<20091214141341.GB1360@redhat.com> <4B264AF1.6060802@codemonkey.ws>
	<7FB8DD1225E54176BCAF5523B6AEA89B@FSCPC>
	<4B26931E.4000101@codemonkey.ws> <20091214194210.GB6150@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20091214194210.GB6150@redhat.com>
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: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: glommer@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, Kevin O'Connor <kevin@koconnor.net>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, Sebastian Herbszt <herbszt@gmx.de>

Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> At some level this is wrong. ROM presence is a hardware feature and you
> definitely need to select your hardware when you create a VM.  For real
> hardware, cards with PXE are sometimes more expensive than without as
> they need ROM memory.  People do select hardware based on this.
>
> Even when PXE is present in hardware, most BIOS
> vendors will let you turn it on/off optionally,
> for security if not for other reasons.
>
> What the default should be depends on whether the
> majority of our users use PXE. I guess not,
> and if I am right default should be off.
>   

The real way to pose this question is, what is the impact to users by 
keeping this on to those that don't use it vs. the cost of turning it 
off by default for users that do need it.

So far, it's not clear to me that anyone has demonstrated how this is 
harmful for people that don't want pxe booting.  Assuming we fix the bug 
about rom loading, then there's really no impact to users.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori