From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48526) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TbsWQ-0001Y9-Rd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 07:38:22 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TbsWI-0004fB-3B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 07:38:18 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37624) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TbsWH-0004eI-KR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 07:38:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 13:38:03 +0100 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20121123123803.GC29800@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> References: <1353595852-30776-1-git-send-email-fred.konrad@greensocs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1353595852-30776-1-git-send-email-fred.konrad@greensocs.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Virtio-refactoring. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: fred.konrad@greensocs.com Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, aliguori@us.ibm.com, e.voevodin@samsung.com, mark.burton@greensocs.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, afaerber@suse.de On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 03:50:49PM +0100, fred.konrad@greensocs.com wrote: > From: KONRAD Frederic > I made the changes you suggest in the last RFC. > > There are still two issues with the command line : > > * When I use ./qemu* -device virtio-blk -device virtio-pci > It is said that no virtio-bus are present. > * The virtio-blk is plugged in the last created virtio-bus if no "bus=" > option is present. It's an issue as we can only plug one virtio-device. > > The first problem is a more general issue as it is the case for the SCSI bus and > can be fixed later. Thanks for sharing virtio refactoring progress. I think the challenge will be truly converting existing code over to the new approach. This RFC series adds a new layer on top of the existing code but doesn't actually replace it. Would be interesting to see the complete picture, even if you need to leave some TODOs in the middle when sending RFC patches. Stefan