On 02/07/2012 07:45 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 06.02.2012 20:25, schrieb Juan Quintela:
Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
I had some follow-up questions to the last call that remained
unanswered. We don't really need a call for that though, email is fine.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-01/msg04065.html
How is the realize step (DeviceState::init) supposed to translate to
Object-derived classes (e.g., CPU) and where to draw the line between
initfn and realize.
Realize probably should be folded into Object or some intermediate object.
The idea is that there will be a realized boolean property. When the level
changes, it will invoke a realize() or unrealize() method depending on the
direction. DeviceState will implement realize() and invoke init(). For
unrealize(), it will invoke exit().
For virtual methods Anthony outlined the intended scheme here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-02/msg00622.html
(Derived classes should save the parent's function pointer in their own
Class and initialize it from the parent class' function pointer.)
Another topic that can be answered by email is what the time planning
for the 4th QOM series looks like. Are there things that developers of
new devices should keep in mind / start doing differently wrt SysBus?
I think I answered this elsewhere.
Regards,
ANthony Liguori
Andreas
--
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
