From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lpm3w-0007Ft-0y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:16:12 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lpm3r-0007EQ-6A
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:16:11 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60186 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lpm3q-0007EA-VR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:16:07 -0400
Received: from yx-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.44.154]:3343)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Lpm3q-0005iS-NZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:16:06 -0400
Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 34so689572yxf.82
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <49D63638.9090509@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:15:52 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Introduce module API to QEMU
References: <1238724755-15929-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>	<200904031235.33157.paul@codesourcery.com>	<49D607A3.7040907@codemonkey.ws>	<200904031409.32792.paul@codesourcery.com>	<49D61924.3080803@codemonkey.ws>
	<49D622F2.705@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <49D622F2.705@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>

Avi Kivity wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, this raises annother issue - we've got to be extremely careful 
>>> about ordering. It's not inconcievable that the PCI support code 
>>> would have constructors (e.g. to register a PCI bus type).
>>>   
>>
>> Looks like constructor/destructor has explicit support for ordering.  
>> Neat.
>
> I'd avoid it.  Have the constructor do a *pci_module_table++ = blah 
> and iterate through that later.

Yup, came to that conclusion too.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> I prefer to have the code explicit somewhere rather than gobs of 
> unportable magic.  Use it where you have to, but not elsewhere.
>
>