From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Type-safe ioport callbacks Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:05:53 +0200 Message-ID: <4CC68BE1.5010207@redhat.com> References: <1287934469-16624-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <1287934469-16624-2-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4CC55554.4060103@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Blue Swirl Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7772 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751414Ab0JZIGA (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:06:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/25/2010 08:38 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: > > > > I don't really see why we need registration; cpu_register_io() takes > > function pointers, a size, and an opaque, and gives an integer handle in > > return. With the IOPort object approach, you set up the IOPort with > > function pointers, size is implied, and the opaque is derived using > > container_of(); the handle is simply the address of the object. > > With the handle, we can separate setting up the structures at device > level, and mapping the object using only the handle at bus or other > higher level. Can this be done with the object approach? I believe so. The handle is simply an indirect pointer, no? > The purpose of that patch series was to perform the separation for PCI > BARs. I wasn't so happy with the series, so I never pushed. In fact I think an IOPort is even more suitable; if we need additional attributes we can use a derived object: struct PCIIOPort { IOPort ioport; /* additional fields */ }; -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function