From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55419) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TgISC-0000UU-TH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:08:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TgIS8-0003Df-1e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:08:12 -0500 Received: from e28smtp01.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.1]:40551) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TgIS7-00031m-Eb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:08:07 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp01.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:37:11 +0530 Message-ID: <50BF7EDB.9070005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:35:31 +0530 From: Avik Sil MIME-Version: 1.0 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> <95C7D95A-D401-4AFE-8DE5-7D5107C3E083@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <95C7D95A-D401-4AFE-8DE5-7D5107C3E083@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Alexander Graf , Anthony Liguori Cc: Peter Maydell , "qemu-ppc@nongnu.org" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "david@gibson.dropbear.id.au" On 10/26/2012 05:15 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 25.10.2012, at 22:57, Alexander Graf wrote: > >> >> On 25.10.2012, at 22:50, 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. >> >> That's what v1 did, and it's ok, if it's mentioned explicitly and thought through properly. Just doing this without proper reasoning is bad, because you potentially change semantics of -boot if you miss anything. On OpenBIOS with PPC we actually make use of the -boot arguments for example. >> >> Hence having a common set of default options the way Anthony put it seems the most sane solution forward. It guarantees you don't break anything in patch 1. Then it goes in and actually changes the semantics for the one machine you want to change in patch 2. > > Anthony, please comment on which path you'd prefer. I'd rather like to have a decision before creating more work. > Anthony, Can you please look into this since 1.4 window is open now? Regards, Avik > > Alex > > >