From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44796) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEfyz-0007mr-SN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:49:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEfyw-0003np-Md for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:49:29 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46757 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEfyw-0003kY-Fb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:49:26 -0400 Message-ID: <55A3DE04.5040209@suse.de> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:49:24 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1436460692-5142-1-git-send-email-cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> <1436460692-5142-2-git-send-email-cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> <55A3AD6D.5010303@de.ibm.com> <20150713161152.3e519fcd.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> <55A3C919.1040400@suse.de> <55A3CB76.4070803@de.ibm.com> <55A3D3BB.3010508@suse.de> <20150713173858.1930cd71.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20150713173858.1930cd71.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.4 1/2] core: reset handler for bus-less devices List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck Cc: peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@suse.de, Christian Borntraeger , jfrei@linux.vnet.ibm.com, gesaint@linux.vnet.ibm.com Am 13.07.2015 um 17:38 schrieb Cornelia Huck: > Really, I think we're moving in circles here. First, the device should > not live on the sysbus as it does not fit the perceived sysbus > semantics. As there is no natural bus for it to live on, it becomes a > pure device. Which is not reset, because somehow a generic callback is > not called generically. >=20 > I think we're really doing ourselves a disservice by this confused > calling convention. How likely is it that someone introducing a pure > device is immediately aware that some callbacks happen automatically > while others don't? I wouldn't be surprised if there were some > headscratchers that are solved by adding the reset call. Well, I'd say the real bug is that this device is on the /machine in the first place, without a parent that propagates reset. Either it becomes self-responsible like this patch or my manual alternative are suggesting, or it is managed by some other object - either by /machine or indicating that this device is misplaced as a child of /machine. Fixing qdev reset to automatically propagate to children wouldn't help here, as /machine is not a device. I would've suggested putting that on the KVM call agenda, but the call is not tomorrow but next week. Regards, Andreas --=20 SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; = HRB 21284 (AG N=C3=BCrnberg)