On 12/20/2011 02:38 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> That was v1 of my patches. Avi didn't like it, I tried it like this, and >> in the end I had to agree. So, no, I don't think we want such a model. > > > Yes, we do :-) > > The in-kernel APIC is a different implementation of the APIC device. > It's not an "accelerator" for the userspace APIC. A different implementation but not a different device. Device == spec. > > All that you're doing here is reinventing qdev. You're defining your > own type system (APICBackend), creating a new regression system for > it, and then defining your own factory function for creating it > (through a qdev property). > > I'm struggling to understand the reason to avoid using the > infrastructure we already have to do all of this. Not every table of function pointers has to be done through qdev (not that I feel strongly about this - only that there is just one APIC device). -- 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
