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.
Alex
