Bug 2124808

Summary:	Use <boot order="x"> syntax for devices in XML
Product:	Red Hat OpenStack	Reporter:	youngcheol <yocha>
Component:	openstack-nova	Assignee:	OSP DFG:Compute <osp-dfg-compute>
Status:	NEW ---	QA Contact:	OSP DFG:Compute <osp-dfg-compute>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	16.1 (Train)	CC:	dasmith, eglynn, jhakimra, kchamart, mwitt, osp-dfg-compute, sbauza, sgordon, smooney, vromanso
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Triaged
Target Release:	---	Flags:	ifrangs: needinfo? (osp-dfg-compute)
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:		Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description youngcheol 2022-09-07 07:18:37 UTC

Description of problem:
Openstack can not control the order of vm boot.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:
can't control the order of vm boot.

Expected results:
Control the order of vm boot.

Additional info:
I'll put a private note.

Comment 2 smooney 2022-09-12 10:13:23 UTC

if we were to provide this it would be an API change and not be backportable.
so if we accept this RFE it would be for the next major development release which is now OSP 19.
it will not be in the next major product release osp 17 or the one after that osp 18 as this is not a backportable change and
those are already feature complete upstream so we can no longer add any RFEs to them.

Comment 3 melanie witt 2022-09-14 15:56:21 UTC

Just to add an update here:

We discussed this on our bug triage call today and determined that there would be no API change to do this. We would use the existing "boot_index" interface for users to indicate the desired boot order and then internally we will use <boot order> instead of <boot dev> [2] (what we have today) to honor it.

Because there would be no API change and the changing boot order is incorrect behavior, we are going to consider this as a bug instead of a RFE. The <boot order> syntax is available since libvirt 0.8.8 [1], so this will be backportable without concern for availability of minimum libvirt version.

[1] https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#specifying-boot-order
[2] https://libvirt.org/formatdomain.html#bios-bootloader