From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42656 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oq47Y-00045I-Do
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:09:57 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Oq47X-0000o6-0q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:09:56 -0400
Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:59740)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1Oq47W-0000o0-Sh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:09:54 -0400
Received: by yxs7 with SMTP id 7so406267yxs.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C7BAC17.3030305@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:03:19 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 5/5] RFC: distinguish warm reset from
	cold reset.
References: <cover.1283152674.git.yamahata@valinux.co.jp>	<0a460e01cca4fa24f446c7a715fe6df17d0be9ed.1283152674.git.yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
	<4C7B70E7.80906@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C7B70E7.80906@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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: glommer@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, blauwirbel@gmail.com, Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>, alex.williamson@redhat.com, avi@redhat.com

On 08/30/2010 03:50 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 08/30/2010 09:49 AM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
>> +/* those two functions are obsoleted by cold/warm reset API. */
>> [qemu_register_reset/qemu_unregister_reset]
>
> Are they?

Yes, but introduce more reset functions isn't the right approach.

Reset should be a method of the device tree, not a stand alone function.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> They have a _lot_ of callers and most of the time you do not really 
> care about cold vs. warm reset.  So, I think either you define a new 
> API where you can request cold reset/warm reset/both, or 
> qemu_register_reset is here to stay forever.
>
> In general, I don't like the duplication you introduce between cold 
> reset, warm reset, shutdown, powerdown, etc.  Maybe you can introduce 
> a new "VMEvent" abstraction with functions like "request", "is 
> requested", "register handler"?
>
> It could also be interesting to convert everything to the Notifier 
> API, if someone wants to play with Coccinelle...
>
> Paolo
>