... >> Was there ever thought to adding loadparm to the machine XML? What's the >> reasoning to not have it there. If it's only valid for bootindex=1, >> then it's far easier to check if the machine XML has it defined rather >> than perusing the disk/network lists (which could be lengthy) only to >> fine none. If the concern is some other arch allowing a different >> bootindex to have loadparm, then the simple decision there is to have a >> "loadparm_bootindex=#" value that would match the disk bootindex=# value. >> > > I am not sure what you mean here? By machine xml do you mean <os> xml? > Sorry I was too lazy to go make the cross reference near the end of the day/review. Guess I was thinking more <os> related though... I see in <os> there's a <boot> subelement which has a relationship with the <boot> subelement for <devices>...[<interface>|<disk>]... I think I was just trying to make sure that adding <loadparm> to <devices> would make sense "in the long run" and what other implementations were considered and not taken because of some drawback. Given the description I've read and the implementation that searches either disk or network lists looking for bootIndex = 1, I wonder if the <os> <boot dev='xxx' > should be modified instead. Was that considered - what were the drawbacks? Can bootparm conceptually be added/used for a non boot disk? I'm not requesting one way or another - I'd just like to be sure the question is answered before perhaps someone else asks it now or much later when this isn't so fresh in your mind. John -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
