On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 14:48 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 28/04/2014 14:43, Marcel Apfelbaum ha scritto: > >> > Yeah, but dangling pointers are bad anyway. I think we should include > >> > Jun's patch. > > I have nothing against it, but maybe you/someone answer this question > > which I honestly don't have the answer for: > > After this patch you can replace a boot-able disk at index x. > > What happens if you do so and the user reboots and selects index x? > > Until now, the index was 'in use', even if the disk was hot-unplugged. > > What are the consequences now? If we can live with them, I am all for using > > this patch. > > Firmware does not use indices, it uses paths. If boards do not update > the paths on reset, firmware behavior will be unmodified before/after > this patch. > > With or without this patch, firmware will look for a device at the > address where the "first" index x was. If there is no device there, > either firmware will crash or it will ignore the entry. If there is a > device, it will boot from that device no matter what the bootindex was > on QEMU's command line.
Thanks for the explanation! As I previously said, I agree with the patch. Thanks, Marcel > > Paolo
