Bug 2124808 - Use <boot order="x"> syntax for devices in XML [NEEDINFO]
Summary: Use <boot order="x"> syntax for devices in XML
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat OpenStack
Classification: Red Hat
Component: openstack-nova
Version: 16.1 (Train)
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: OSP DFG:Compute
QA Contact: OSP DFG:Compute
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-09-07 07:18 UTC by youngcheol
Modified: 2023-08-03 15:46 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
ifrangs: needinfo? (osp-dfg-compute)


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker OSP-18579 0 None None None 2022-09-07 07:33:17 UTC

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


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.