From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MlGLZ-0002WJ-PX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:08:01 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MlGLT-0002Lu-2O
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:07:59 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38798 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MlGLS-0002LV-Nf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:07:54 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38893)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <amit.shah@redhat.com>) id 1MlGLR-0002On-UU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:07:54 -0400
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:37:24 +0530
From: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20090909060724.GD17011@amit-x200.redhat.com>
References: <1252055670-26958-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com>
	<4AA66543.4000804@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4AA66543.4000804@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] virtio-console: Have a static instance of
	virtconsole
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>

On (Tue) Sep 08 2009 [09:08:03], Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Amit Shah wrote:
>> Currently the VirtIOConsole struct is allocated from the call
>> to virtio_common_init, also doing an UP_CAST implicitly.
>>
>> The new multiport functionality will need a few arrays and
>> it's easier to move to the new VMState infrastructure by
>> keeping it all within one struct.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>
>>   
>
> This seems bad.  Even though the device is multiport capable, we should  
> still supporting having multiple devices per guest.

OK; so I'll drop this for now. I'd much rather we get the multiple ports
patch in first and then add support for multiple devices.

		Amit