From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MeQD5-0000c7-VS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:15:00 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MeQD1-0000Vu-8B
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:14:59 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55078 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MeQD0-0000Vi-ES
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:14:54 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12968)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1MeQCz-0007y3-65
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:14:53 -0400
Received: from int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7L9Eqwx002836
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:14:52 -0400
Message-ID: <4A8E657D.4040604@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:14:37 +0200
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1250788880.git.quintela@redhat.com>	<20ca5615c8cdc456296698133e3b0dbd5a1f4de7.1250788880.git.quintela@redhat.com>	<4A8E6049.6020609@redhat.com>
	<m33a7ly1zl.fsf@neno.mitica>
In-Reply-To: <m33a7ly1zl.fsf@neno.mitica>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 21/23] Port PCIDevice state to VMState
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: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 08/21/09 11:01, Juan Quintela wrote:
> I agree that the INT32_EQUAL is a bad idea. But that is how
> the current code is done.

Consider changing the code then ;)

>> Beside that we'll have to think about how to handle versioning of
>> structs.  Do we want vmstate_pci_device (and all others) have its own
>> version?  Probably makes sense.  Handling this should go into the
>> generic code then and not be hacked into each structure using
>> VMSTATE_INT32_LE().
>
> Proper solution here is to use subsections.
> Each time that you call VMSTATE_PCI_DEVICE() it sends a subsection
> there.  Then we get the versioning by free.  This is how I am thinking
> it is the right way to do it.

Yep, something like this.

> virtio stuff: the more than I think about it, the easier way is to just
> get rid of the whole mess and do something that is sensible.

You are talking about VirtIOPCIProxy I guess?
Yea, that is messy ...

cheers,
   Gerd