From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:54671) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RcwR1-0003Ck-Op for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:56:38 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RcwQu-0004Tu-Mt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:56:35 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12526) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RcwQu-0004T0-2d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:56:28 -0500 Message-ID: <4EF05BC4.8010905@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:56:20 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4EEFB72E.7030508@codemonkey.ws> <4EEFC970.9030205@web.de> <4EEFD69F.6080700@codemonkey.ws> <4EEFD786.8030609@web.de> <4EEFD90A.1000204@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4EEFD90A.1000204@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 06/16] apic: Introduce backend/frontend infrastructure for KVM reuse List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Anthony Liguori , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel , Blue Swirl , Jan Kiszka On 12/20/2011 02:38 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> That was v1 of my patches. Avi didn't like it, I tried it like this, and >> in the end I had to agree. So, no, I don't think we want such a model. > > > Yes, we do :-) > > The in-kernel APIC is a different implementation of the APIC device. > It's not an "accelerator" for the userspace APIC. A different implementation but not a different device. Device == spec. > > All that you're doing here is reinventing qdev. You're defining your > own type system (APICBackend), creating a new regression system for > it, and then defining your own factory function for creating it > (through a qdev property). > > I'm struggling to understand the reason to avoid using the > infrastructure we already have to do all of this. Not every table of function pointers has to be done through qdev (not that I feel strongly about this - only that there is just one APIC device). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function