Il 18/07/2014 15:01, Michal Privoznik ha scritto:
> On 14.07.2014 16:12, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 14/07/2014 11:27, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
>>> -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
>>> -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>>
>> It's safer to add ",unit=0" and ",u
On 14.07.2014 16:12, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 14/07/2014 11:27, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
-drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
-drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
It's safer to add ",unit=0" and ",unit=1" too.
We already use for specifying alternative BIOS bl
Il 14/07/2014 16:43, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
> > -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
> > -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>
> It's safer to add ",unit=0" and ",unit=1" too.
Is there any compelling reason to make the unit numbers user
configurable. Are they g
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 04:12:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 14/07/2014 11:27, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
> > -drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
> > -drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
>
> It's safer to add ",unit=0" and ",unit=1" too.
Is there any compellin
Il 14/07/2014 11:27, Daniel P. Berrange ha scritto:
-drive file=img_1,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly \
-drive file=img_2,if=pflash,format=raw
It's safer to add ",unit=0" and ",unit=1" too.
We already use for specifying alternative BIOS blobs for
the QEMU -bios arg. Since you say t
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:55:52AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On 07/14/14 11:27, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:32:34AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >> Dear list,
> >>
> >> there's been a lot of development in QEMU on this part. And I think it's
> >> settled down eno
On 07/14/14 11:27, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:32:34AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> Dear list,
>>
>> there's been a lot of development in QEMU on this part. And I think it's
>> settled down enough long so I can start looking at it. So I'd like to hear
>> you opinion
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:32:34AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> there's been a lot of development in QEMU on this part. And I think it's
> settled down enough long so I can start looking at it. So I'd like to hear
> you opinion what's the best way to expose this in libvirt.
>
>
Dear list,
there's been a lot of development in QEMU on this part. And I think it's
settled down enough long so I can start looking at it. So I'd like to
hear you opinion what's the best way to expose this in libvirt.
OVMF can bee looked at as a UEFI enablement in guest. Standard UEFI
consis