On 2011-12-20 15:07, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 07:57 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 12/20/2011 02:54 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>> In QOM parlance Jan implemented this:
>>>>
>>>> abstract class Object
>>>> abstract class Device
>>>> class APIC: { backend: link<APICBackend> }
>>>> abstract class APICBackend
>>>> class QEMU_APICBackend
>>>> class KVM_APICBackend
>>>
>>> I don't fundamentally object to modeling it like this provided that it's
>>> modeled (and visible) through qdev and not done through a one-off
>>> infrastructure.
>>
>> There is no superclass of DeviceState, hence doing it through qdev
>> would mean
>> introducing a new bus type and so on. This would be a superb example of a
>> useless bus that can disappear with QOM, but I don't see why we should
>> take the
>> pain to add it in the first place. :)
>
> Right, so let's modeled it for now as inheritance which qdev can cope with.
Do we have a clear plan now how to sort out the addressing issues in
this model? I mean when registering two devices under different names
that are supposed to be addressable under the same alias once
instantiated. I didn't follow recent qtree naming changes in details
unfortunately, if they already enable this.
This does not need to be implemented before merge. I just like to have a
common view on how to address it once it matters (for device inspection).
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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
