On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/19/2011 07:15 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >> So they interact with KVM (need kvm_state), and they interact with the >> emulated PCI bus. ÂCould you elaborate on the fundamental difference >> between the two interactions that makes you choose the (hypothetical) >> KVM bus over the PCI bus as device parent? >> > > It's almost arbitrary, but I would say it's the direction that I/Os flow. > > But if the underlying observation is that the device tree is not really a > tree, you're 100% correct. ÂThis is part of why a factory interface that > just takes a parent bus is too simplistic. > > I think we ought to introduce a -pci-device option that is specifically for > creating PCI devices that doesn't require a parent bus argument but provides > a way to specify stable addressing (for instancing, using a linear index). I think kvm_state should not be a property of any device or bus. It should be split to more logical pieces. Some parts of it could remain in CPUState, because they are associated with a VCPU. Also, for example irqfd could be considered to be similar object to char or block devices provided by QEMU to devices. Would it make sense to introduce new host types for passing parts of kvm_state to devices? I'd also make coalesced MMIO stuff part of memory object. We are not passing any state references when using cpu_physical_memory_rw(), but that could be changed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
