On 12/19/2011 05:49 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-12-19 23:24, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/19/2011 03:17 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Anthony,
Can you please review& ACK?
You could even apply directly but well do a kvm-autotest run through
uq/master. Still, your review is needed.
Overall, it looks good except for the backend/frontend split. This
should be done in terms of qdev inheritance.
I cannot follow your idea here yet. There is no inheritance as we end up
with only a single class that permutes (selects a different backend) on
creation. I'm not sure how to model two classes that will still only
mean a single qdev registration.
See other reply in thread.
We should model this as two separate qdev devices. We can avoid regressing
migration in qemu-kvm by just having a common vmstate name.
apic is a no-user device so there's no way that changing the name of it in
qemu-kvm can affect users.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Jan
--
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
