From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 06/16] apic: Introduce backend/frontend infrastructure for KVM reuse Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:56:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4EF05BC4.8010905@redhat.com> References: <4EEFB72E.7030508@codemonkey.ws> <4EEFC970.9030205@web.de> <4EEFD69F.6080700@codemonkey.ws> <4EEFD786.8030609@web.de> <4EEFD90A.1000204@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Kiszka , Anthony Liguori , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel , Blue Swirl To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49748 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752807Ab1LTJ4a (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:56:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4EEFD90A.1000204@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/20/2011 02:38 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> That was v1 of my patches. Avi didn't like it, I tried it like this, and >> in the end I had to agree. So, no, I don't think we want such a model. > > > Yes, we do :-) > > The in-kernel APIC is a different implementation of the APIC device. > It's not an "accelerator" for the userspace APIC. A different implementation but not a different device. Device == spec. > > All that you're doing here is reinventing qdev. You're defining your > own type system (APICBackend), creating a new regression system for > it, and then defining your own factory function for creating it > (through a qdev property). > > I'm struggling to understand the reason to avoid using the > infrastructure we already have to do all of this. Not every table of function pointers has to be done through qdev (not that I feel strongly about this - only that there is just one APIC device). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function