On 12/20/2011 12:03 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/20/2011 04:46 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > > > I would hope that you would agree that when designing the device > > model, we should aim to do what makes sense independent of migration. > > If we cannot achieve a certain feature with migration given the > > logical modeling of devices, it probably suggests that we need to > > improve our migration infrastructure. > > > > I assume that given the above, we all agree that separate devices is > > what makes the most sense ignoring migration. > > I don't agree with this. The problem with having two devices, is that now you have to identify the common code, put them somewhere, and use them as necessary. "apic" and "kvm-apic" both is-a (are-a?) "apic". This suggests either a base class (containing the common code) and derived classes, or (like Jan's implementation), just one class, that defers part of the implementation to an interface implemented by two other classes. Two unrelated classes which happen to implement exactly the same interface (vmstate fields) except one (visible name) and share some code are a strange solution to this problem. -- 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
