From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43427 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PpRPL-0001eq-Tw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:22:00 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PpRPK-0006YV-Qf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:21:59 -0500
Received: from mail-qy0-f180.google.com ([209.85.216.180]:56232)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PpRPK-0006YL-Me
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:21:58 -0500
Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so513836qyk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:21:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D5AE055.1090102@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:21:41 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Is this an invalid combination?
References: <4D5A7A8D02000048000AA029@novprvoes0310.provo.novell.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D5A7A8D02000048000AA029@novprvoes0310.provo.novell.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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Bruce Rogers <brogers@novell.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>

On 02/15/2011 02:07 PM, Bruce Rogers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We just noticed an issue flagged by a libvirt based test.  This same command line didn't used to fail, and I wanted to be sure that this is behaving as intended.
>
> When the following command line is used on the current qemu version:
>
> x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -kernel /boot/vmlinuz -drive file=~/disk0.raw,if=none,id=foo,boot=on -device virtio-blk-pci,drive=foo
>
> We get the following error reported:
> Two devices with same boot index 0
>
> Previous versions of qemu did not flag this as an error condition.
>    

Upstream QEMU does not have a boolean boot flag although I guess we 
ignore it in -drive which sucks :-/

In upstream QEMU, the BIOS can boot just fine from a virtio device.  
What you're seeing is that we've apparently overloaded the boot flag in 
upstream qemu to mean boot index.

Gleb, what's the right invocation here?

Regards,

ANthony Liguori

> I can see that we are indicating two different boot sources here, so I would guess the command line is invalid, but wanted to be sure.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>