From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 14/16] kvm: x86: Add user space part
 for in-kernel i8259
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:14:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4EDCC3B8.9020203@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1322910904.git.jan.kiszka@web.de>
	<dabf933896380a5100335a0d1b5e3351000e6f4b.1322910904.git.jan.kiszka@web.de>
	<4EDB762C.7090909@redhat.com> <4EDB78DE.6000109@web.de>
	<4EDB7A74.4060804@redhat.com> <4EDB7ADC.50906@web.de>
	<4EDB7DE2.2050301@redhat.com> <4EDB7E62.7090909@web.de>
	<4EDB8DDE.5040402@redhat.com> <4EDB8F7C.1070602@web.de>
	<4EDBA15E.3060309@redhat.com>
	<CAAu8pHv8UCiEtCAE8LQoJ1S7+erX3kOX2fkgoO7_pogMnoHNYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EDBE865.6000907@web.de> <4EDC9680.2070305@redhat.com>
	<4EDCAD01.2010608@web.de> <4EDCBAB8.10307@redhat.com>
	<4EDCBD66.6010100@siemens.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Return-path: <qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <4EDCBD66.6010100@siemens.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org
Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 12/05/2011 02:47 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > 
> > (the memory API added unstable names, hopefully the QOM can take over
> > the stable ones and we'll have a good way to denote the unstable ones).
> > 
>
> OK, maybe - or likely - we should make those device models have the same
> names in QOM once instantiated. But I'm still convinced they should
> remain separated models in contrast to a single model with a property.

What do you mean by separate models?  You share all the code you can,
and don't share the code you can't.  To me, single model == single name.

> The kvm ioapic, e.g., requires an additional property (gsi_base) that is
> meaningless for user space devices. And its interrupts have to be
> wired&configured differently at board model level. So, from the QEMU
> POV, it is a very different device. Just the guest does not notice.

It's like qcow2 and raw/native IO are wire differently, or virtio-net
and vhost-net.  But it's the same IDE device or virtio NIC.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function