Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/5] -object/object-add support custom location and 2nd stage initialization

[Igor Mammedov]

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 17:45:25 +0100
Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:

> Am 08.01.2014 17:24, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> > Il 08/01/2014 17:09, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
> >> Adds optional interfaces that objects could implement if
> >> they need to:
> >>   1. perform an additional initialization after object properties are set
> >>   2. be placed not in '/objects' container
> >>
> >> Series depends on 2 PULL requests in flight from Andreas & Luiz
> >> with fixes for QOM interfaces and object-add monitor/QMP command.
> >> Git tree for testing:
> >>   https://github.com/imammedo/qemu/commits/extend-object-add
> >>
> >> Igor Mammedov (5):
> >>   object_add: consolidate error handling
> >>   add optional 2nd stage initialization to
> >>     -object/object-add/object_add commands
> >>   virtio_rng: use object_realize interface instead of calling backend
> >>     API
> >>   vl.c: -object: handle duplicate 'id' properly
> >>   -object/object-add: use custom default object location if provided
> >>
> >>  backends/rng.c                  |   17 ++++++-
> >>  hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c          |   15 ++++---
> >>  include/qom/object_interfaces.h |   96 
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  include/sysemu/rng.h            |   11 -----
> >>  qmp.c                           |   30 +++++++++---
> >>  qom/Makefile.objs               |    1 +
> >>  qom/object_interfaces.c         |   57 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  vl.c                            |   21 ++++++++-
> >>  8 files changed, 220 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >>  create mode 100644 include/qom/object_interfaces.h
> >>  create mode 100644 qom/object_interfaces.c
> >>
> > 
> > Thanks Igor!  I like very much patches 1-4 (though I'm thinking that we
> > need some style conventions for interfaces).  I think patch 5 adds more
> > complexity than we need, but I'm open to discussion.
> 
> Hm, I have doubts about the use of "realize" here. So far that is only
> implemented for devices, patches for bus still pending my review, and
> for those we don't want that  to be handled by -object or object-add but
> recursive realization as part of machine initialization, allowing
> interaction via qom-set before. It that's different for backends, can we
> maybe pick a name different from "realize"?
Any suggestions?

> 
> Andreas
>