From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 18/18] kvm: Activate in-kernel irqchip support Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:33:26 -0600 Message-ID: <4F1ECF46.8050707@us.ibm.com> References: <6a48ffaaa732b2142c1b5030178f2d4a0fa499fe.1326972302.git.jan.kiszka@siemens.com> <20120119180851.GA19099@amt.cnet> <4F1866E0.7010900@web.de> <4F1EBAAF.8040808@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Kiszka , Marcelo Tosatti , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel , Blue Swirl To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:54536 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751809Ab2AXPds (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:33:48 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e36.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:33:47 -0700 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1677119D8062 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:33:42 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q0OFXfxC166836 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:33:42 -0500 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q0OFXS9B018954 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:33:30 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4F1EBAAF.8040808@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/24/2012 08:05 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 01/19/2012 08:54 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Nope, see kvm_irqchip_create, patch 13. You can also check by browsing >> the qtree (different device model names). > > That was my biggest objection to the previous iterations. Later > versions changed to use an attribute (selecting the backend). What > happened now? They have different *type* names. They can have the same *object* name. All user interaction with a device should be through object name. The type name is merely an implementation detail. Regards, Anthony Liguori >