On 12/20/2011 03:56 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
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.
If it was hardware, it'd be a fully compatible clone. The way we would model
this is via inheritance.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
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).
--
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
