Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for Tuesday 7

[Anthony Liguori]

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