From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60520) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TkzGI-0004kM-Ew for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:39:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TkzGE-0000Vb-AF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:39:17 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5254) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TkzGE-0000VT-30 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:39:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:42:17 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20121218154217.GA28245@redhat.com> References: <20121218110153.GC22586@redhat.com> <50D05898.9030506@redhat.com> <20121218131043.GA26110@redhat.com> <50D07F50.6010800@redhat.com> <50D084EF.5030405@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50D084EF.5030405@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v6 0/6] Virtio refactoring. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Peter Maydell , aliguori@us.ibm.com, e.voevodin@samsung.com, mark.burton@greensocs.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, afaerber@suse.de, fred.konrad@greensocs.com On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 03:59:59PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > It does seem frankly bizarre that adding a new transport requires > > knowing about all the backends (notice how s390-virtio-bus.c has > > to register types for each backend). The kernel gets the transport > > vs backend separation much cleaner and it was much easier to > > add the virtio support there. > > Yes, I agree. However, to some extent it's unavoidable. For example, > the PCI transport needs to know the class id for each backend. PCI device ID too (they don't match virtio IDs). -- MST