From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
To: "Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Semantics of DeviceState::realized and BlockDriverState
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:26:26 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FD69AC2.8040903@codemonkey.ws> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FD68D52.8020304@suse.de>
On 06/11/2012 07:29 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 12.06.2012 00:05, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> I think I'm becoming convinced that realized belongs in DeviceState and
>> that BlockDriverState does not have a realized equivalent.
>
>> To me, realized represents Vcc. When realized=true, the guest has power
>> and is active. When realized=false, the guest has lost power. The
>> realize() event is the rising edge of Vcc, unrealized() is the falling
>> edge.
>
> Then please name it appropriately: "powered" and "unpowered".
>
> Realization has nothing to do with power, it's an OOP term that
> distinguishes from instantiation.
Eh? I'm not familiar with it as a OOP term.
> The way this discussion has headed is very unfortunate for me since I
> need such a hook for the CPUs today and not in a far future when the
> whole of qdev has been refactored to match the QOM type / inheritance
I warned you early on that CPUs were not the best place to start...
I think the fundamental problem is that CPU wants to be a TYPE_DEVICE. We
probably shouldn't have started with it as TYPE_OBJECT.
I think that's really the immediate problem that needs to be solved. I think
avoiding making it TYPE_DEVICE is what's caused us to attempt to push realized
into Object in the first place.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-12 1:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-11 22:05 [Qemu-devel] Semantics of DeviceState::realized and BlockDriverState Anthony Liguori
2012-06-12 0:29 ` Andreas Färber
2012-06-12 1:26 ` Anthony Liguori [this message]
2012-06-12 6:10 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-06-12 8:07 ` Kevin Wolf
2012-06-12 8:02 ` Kevin Wolf
2012-06-13 12:53 ` Markus Armbruster
2012-06-13 12:55 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-06-13 13:18 ` Anthony Liguori
2012-06-13 15:44 ` Kevin Wolf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FD69AC2.8040903@codemonkey.ws \
--to=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=afaerber@suse.de \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).