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.
Alex
