On 11/23/2012 10:22 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 05.11.2012, at 12:34, Avik Sil wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2012 05:15 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25.10.2012, at 22:57, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25.10.2012, at 22:50, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25 October 2012 21:18, Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> 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, Alexander, any comments on the above?
>
> I'm really waiting for Anthony just like you do :). This is nothing I want to
> make a call on.
Anthony, can you please comment on this?
Regards,
Avik
>
>
> Alex
>
>
