From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: What to do about non-qdevified devices? Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:58:20 +0100 Message-ID: <5109512C.1050903@redhat.com> References: <871ud4gfoa.fsf@elfo.elfo> <510836DD.3010707@suse.de> <87sj5j7jo8.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <87pq0n887o.fsf_-_@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <874nhy3l2q.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <510923C1.5090904@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Peter Maydell , Anthony Liguori , KVM devel mailing list , Juan Quintela , qemu-devel , Alexander Graf , Markus Armbruster To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= Return-path: In-Reply-To: <510923C1.5090904@suse.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 Il 30/01/2013 14:44, Andreas Färber ha scritto: > I disagree on the "or else" part. I have been qdev'ifying and QOM'ifying > devices in my maintenance area, and progress is slow. It gets even > slower if one leaves clearly maintained areas. I see no good reason to > force a pistol on someone's breast, like you have done for IDE, unless > there is a good reason to do so. Currently I don't see any. The reason for IDE is that it involved devices that are not SysBusDevices (the IDE disk devices). Having the same code work in two ways, one qdevified and one not, is bad. For simple SysBusDevice you're changing a crappy default to a less bad one, but there's really little incentive to qdev/QOM-ification. Paolo