From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37740)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1SXCl4-0001Sz-Bp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:41:56 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1SXCkt-0006HA-Am
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:41:49 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48074 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1SXCkt-0006Gn-4R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 23 May 2012 10:41:39 -0400
Message-ID: <4FBCF71D.7050705@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 16:41:33 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1337504561-20297-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA-QAtdv-0MufTbux8LmpDF23e9=4LaVGd0vAKyXHnJXQw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-QAtdv-0MufTbux8LmpDF23e9=4LaVGd0vAKyXHnJXQw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Make pointer to fw_cfg device global.
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>

Am 23.05.2012 14:44, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 20 May 2012 10:02, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:
>> There can be only one fw_cfg device, so saving global reference to it
>> removes the need to pass its pointer around.
>=20
> This seems like a backwards step to me: one of the things that prevents
> us supporting "two separate machines in one emulation" is that we have
> various things that assume there's only one instance of themselves and
> use globals. I don't think we should be adding any more...

While I concur with the design sentiment of avoiding globals where
possible, I can understand having multiple CPU types in one machine, but
multiple machines in one emulation? Do you have a specific example that
cannot easily be modeled as multiple socket-connected executables?

Andreas

--=20
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC=
rnberg