On 2011-12-20 01:32, Anthony Liguori wrote: > 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. Look down http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/82598 for the discussion of that model. Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
