Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Feb 8

Anthony Liguori
2011-02-09T10:32:07Z

On 02/09/2011 02:01 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes:
>
>
>> On 02/08/2011 11:13 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Wright<chrisw@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> - qdev/vmstate both examples of partially completed work that need more
>>>> attention
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As far as qdev's concerned, I can see two kinds of to-dos:
>>>
>>> * Further develop qdev so that more of the machine init code can becomes
>>> qdev declarations. Specific ideas welcome. Patches even more, as
>>> always.
>>>
>>>
>> I think we need to improve the i440fx modelling as a lot of the stuff
>> done in the machine init for pc really belongs as part of the i440fx.
>>
>> In theory, creating an i440fx ought to be essentially equivalent to
>> the machine init function today.
>>
>>
>>> * Convert the remaining devices. They are typically used only with
>>> oddball machines, which makes the conversion hard to test for anyone
>>> who's not already using them.
>>>
>>> I've said this before: at some point in time (sooner rather than
>>> later, if you ask me), we need to shoot the stragglers. I'm pretty
>>> optimistic that any victims worth keeping will receive timely
>>> attention then.
>>>
>>> Anything else?
>>>
>>>
>> We need to unify the property model. We have QemuOpts, qdev
>> properties, and QObject which basically reinvents variant typing three
>> different ways.
>>
> Make it four: QEMUOptionParameter.
>
> Now let me make it three again. Unlike the others, a qdev property
> describes a perfectly ordinary, non-variant struct member. It's poor
> man's reflection, not a variant type.
>

Except that construction of a device requires initialization from an
array of variants (which is then type checked). The way we store the
variants is lossy because we convert back and forth to a string.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori