[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup
From: |
Avi Kivity |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:00:21 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100720 Fedora/3.1.1-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.1.1 |
On 08/23/2010 04:48 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
The fundamental issue is: every function (minus trivial ones) in the
device models code should have a state reference. That state
reference should inherit from a DeviceState. If this statement
isn't true, then the device has been modelled in qdev incorrectly.
Using this test, quite a lot of the "converted" devices are being
modelled incorrectly.
Is a "state reference" allowed to have a pointer to the state, or
reach it in some other way (for example, static storage for singleton
devices)?
No. If this was C++, then the statement would be: device have to be
implemented in terms of objects that inherit from Device. Device is
our common base object.
so,
struct MyDevicestate {
struct DeviceState device_state;
bool *some_bit;
};
bad, while
struct MyDevicestate {
struct DeviceState device_state;
bool some_bit;
};
good?
Isn't "save/restore works" an equivalent statement to "device state
is reachable from the DeviceState"?
I'm not sure I can connect the dots here as I'm not sure what follows
if your assertion is true.
If save/restore works then all state is reachable from one point?
Presumable DeviceState?
I really don't see why the state has to be in the DeviceState subclass.
We're probably talking past each other here due to some confusion in terms.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, malc, 2010/08/20
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Markus Armbruster, 2010/08/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Avi Kivity, 2010/08/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/22
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Avi Kivity, 2010/08/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Avi Kivity, 2010/08/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup,
Avi Kivity <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Avi Kivity, 2010/08/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Markus Armbruster, 2010/08/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Markus Armbruster, 2010/08/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/23
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Jan Kiszka, 2010/08/23
- [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/23
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] APIC/IOAPIC cleanup, Avi Kivity, 2010/08/23