[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 06/16] apic: Introduce backend/frontend infra

From: Jan Kiszka
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 06/16] apic: Introduce backend/frontend infrastructure for KVM reuse
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:02:45 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv: Gecko/20080226 SUSE/ Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

On 2011-12-20 15:07, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 07:57 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 12/20/2011 02:54 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>> In QOM parlance Jan implemented this:
>>>> abstract class Object
>>>> abstract class Device
>>>> class APIC: { backend: link<APICBackend> }
>>>> abstract class APICBackend
>>>> class QEMU_APICBackend
>>>> class KVM_APICBackend
>>> I don't fundamentally object to modeling it like this provided that it's
>>> modeled (and visible) through qdev and not done through a one-off
>>> infrastructure.
>> There is no superclass of DeviceState, hence doing it through qdev
>> would mean
>> introducing a new bus type and so on. This would be a superb example of a
>> useless bus that can disappear with QOM, but I don't see why we should
>> take the
>> pain to add it in the first place. :)
> Right, so let's modeled it for now as inheritance which qdev can cope with.

Do we have a clear plan now how to sort out the addressing issues in
this model? I mean when registering two devices under different names
that are supposed to be addressable under the same alias once
instantiated. I didn't follow recent qtree naming changes in details
unfortunately, if they already enable this.

This does not need to be implemented before merge. I just like to have a
common view on how to address it once it matters (for device inspection).


Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]