From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 06/16] apic: Introduce backend/frontend
 infrastructure for KVM reuse
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:51:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4EF092D2.6080009@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1323952402.git.jan.kiszka@siemens.com>	<c7844d420d29d281ec17416742cb18b464351d6a.1323952403.git.jan.kiszka@siemens.com>	<4EEFB72E.7030508@codemonkey.ws>	<4EEFC970.9030205@web.de>	<4EEFD69F.6080700@codemonkey.ws> <4EEFD786.8030609@web.de>	<4EEFD90A.1000204@codemonkey.ws> <4EF05BC4.8010905@redhat.com> <4EF09078.2030508@codemonkey.ws>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, 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>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:47899 "EHLO
	mail-gx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751795Ab1LTNvX (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 20 Dec 2011 08:51:23 -0500
Received: by ggdk6 with SMTP id k6so4740512ggd.19
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 05:51:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4EF09078.2030508@codemonkey.ws>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 12/20/2011 02:41 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 03:56 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> 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.
>
> If it was hardware, it'd be a fully compatible clone. The way we would
> model this is via inheritance.

I see your fully compatible clone, and I raise my bridge with a 
different implementation underneath.  It's the same old debate on is-a 
vs has-a.

In QOM parlance Jan implemented this:

     abstract class Object
         abstract class Device
             class APIC: { backend: link<APICBackend> }
         abstract class APICBackend
             class QEMU_APICBackend
             class KVM_APICBackend

and you're proposing this:

     abstract class Object
         abstract class Device
             abstract class APIC
                 class QEMU_APIC
                 class KVM_APIC

Both can be right, both can be wrong.

Paolo