From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IKSZ7-0001lV-PG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:34:09 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IKSZ7-0001k9-1r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:34:09 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IKSZ6-0001jt-Nq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:34:08 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.177]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IKSZ6-00016S-Ao for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:34:08 -0400 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k22so1826033waf for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <59abf66e0708122234u6fe7a27bwa08f92252951879a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:34:04 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Luc=E1ngeli_Obes?=" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4][RFC] Add logic to QEMU to read command line options from qcow2 images In-Reply-To: <1186874268.11306.1.camel@squirrel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <59abf66e0708081124g14901b01i841b70d17ae1e097@mail.gmail.com> <59abf66e0708081252of2948d7we85c9084bad245d4@mail.gmail.com> <46BDFA90.4070400@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <46BE138D.7000500@codemonkey.ws> <46BE29F9.9050904@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <1186874268.11306.1.camel@squirrel> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On 8/11/07, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On Sat, 2007-08-11 at 22:28 +0100, Philip Boulain wrote: > > This works, so long as qemu disregards "-read-args-from-image" unless it's > > being called as an interpreter. Otherwise, you've put the lock and the key in > > the same place. :) > > Yes. This is exactly what I think the behavior ought to be. Ack. > > (Side thought: presumably, we're assuming that the in-file and on-command-line > > arguments are unioned, ideally with the latter taking precidence if mutually > > exclusive.) > > Yup, I was thinking the same thing too. Once the KVM wiki comes back > online I'll write something up on a wiki page. Great, that was also my idea. Anyone interested in taking a stab at this one? I will try and start getting it done this week. Cheers, Jorge