From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for Tuesday 7 Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:45:32 +0100 Message-ID: <4F312AFC.6020908@suse.de> References: <87ehu7pxvf.fsf@elfo.elfo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: KVM devel mailing list , Developers qemu-devel To: quintela@redhat.com, Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36342 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753590Ab2BGNr4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:47:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87ehu7pxvf.fsf@elfo.elfo> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 06.02.2012 20:25, schrieb Juan Quintela: > Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering. I had some follow-up questions to the last call that remained unanswered. We don't really need a call for that though, email is fine. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-01/msg04065.html How is the realize step (DeviceState::init) supposed to translate to Object-derived classes (e.g., CPU) and where to draw the line between initfn and realize. =46or virtual methods Anthony outlined the intended scheme here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-02/msg00622.html (Derived classes should save the parent's function pointer in their own Class and initialize it from the parent class' function pointer.) Another topic that can be answered by email is what the time planning for the 4th QOM series looks like. Are there things that developers of new devices should keep in mind / start doing differently wrt SysBus? Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FCrn= berg