Eric Blake wrote: > On 02/17/2011 02:38 PM, Jim Fehlig wrote: > >> libvirt-tck was failing several domain tests [1] with qemu 0.14, which >> is now less tolerable of specifying 2 bootroms with the same boot index [2]. >> >> Drop the 'boot=on' param if kernel has been specfied. >> >> [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-February/msg00559.html >> [2] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-02/msg01892.html >> --- >> src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c >> index 618d3a9..a9cc23b 100644 >> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_command.c >> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_command.c >> @@ -3173,7 +3173,7 @@ qemuBuildCommandLine(virConnectPtr conn, >> int bootCD = 0, bootFloppy = 0, bootDisk = 0; >> >> /* If QEMU supports boot=on for -drive param... */ >> - if (qemuCmdFlags & QEMUD_CMD_FLAG_DRIVE_BOOT) { >> + if (qemuCmdFlags & QEMUD_CMD_FLAG_DRIVE_BOOT && !def->os.kernel) { >> > > ACK; that looks better than v1. > Thanks; pushed. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list