On 12/20/2011 03:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 02:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I see your fully compatible clone, and I raise my bridge with a
> different implementation underneath. It's the same old debate on is-a
> vs has-a.
>
> In QOM parlance Jan implemented this:
QOM is the new C++
>
> abstract class Object
> abstract class Device
> class APIC: { backend: link<APICBackend> }
> abstract class APICBackend
> class QEMU_APICBackend
> class KVM_APICBackend
>
> and you're proposing this:
>
> abstract class Object
> abstract class Device
> abstract class APIC
> class QEMU_APIC
> class KVM_APIC
>
> Both can be right, both can be wrong.
I don't mind either. What I don't want:
abstract class Object
abstract class Device
class APIC
class KVMAPIC
--
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
