On 12/05/2011 02:47 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > (the memory API added unstable names, hopefully the QOM can take over > > the stable ones and we'll have a good way to denote the unstable ones). > > > > OK, maybe - or likely - we should make those device models have the same > names in QOM once instantiated. But I'm still convinced they should > remain separated models in contrast to a single model with a property. What do you mean by separate models? You share all the code you can, and don't share the code you can't. To me, single model == single name. > The kvm ioapic, e.g., requires an additional property (gsi_base) that is > meaningless for user space devices. And its interrupts have to be > wired&configured differently at board model level. So, from the QEMU > POV, it is a very different device. Just the guest does not notice. It's like qcow2 and raw/native IO are wire differently, or virtio-net and vhost-net. But it's the same IDE device or virtio NIC. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
