From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Nu21p-0000MC-Cv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:12:10 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45152 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nu21e-00009O-8a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:11:58 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1Nu21d-00074I-Bl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:11:57 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:61338)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1Nu21c-000742-St
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 07:11:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4BA8A1EF.7050100@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:11:43 +0100
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/9] Virtio cleanups
References: <cover.1268765204.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<20100322171945.GA19994@redhat.com> <m3k4t4atoq.fsf@trasno.mitica>
	<201003230049.41271.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<4BA81651.1070801@codemonkey.ws>
	<20100323104724.GA23512@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100323104724.GA23512@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 03/23/10 11:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> I'm not sure what we should do for command line syntax.  We can keep
>> -drive working as is.  Do we need to support -device based creation?  I
>> don't think we've really considered what to do in a situation like this.

> If we need to change command line because of an implementation
> change, IMO something is wrong with the design.
> Users shouldn't care about non-existent virtio bus.

You can automagically create the virtio devices on the virtio bus, 
passing through any properties.  usb-storage does this for example with 
the scsi-disk device it needs.  But then you can't have a generic 
virtio-pci device any more.  You need a virtio-blk-pci which creates a 
virtio-bus and virtio-blk.  So it doesn't buy us much over the current 
situation ...

cheers,
   Gerd