From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45539)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1TsKtn-0006Wz-WF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:10:29 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1TsKtm-0006Po-AF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:10:27 -0500
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55473 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1TsKtm-0006PV-4F
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:10:26 -0500
Message-ID: <50EB47CC.6030507@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 23:10:20 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1355760006-891-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
	<874nisvlfv.fsf@codemonkey.ws>
	<CAFEAcA-vg9C-st5GCHMhKuHsACvUw4L-Kfo4L9VeAA13kqnHuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<87ip78u50m.fsf@codemonkey.ws>
	<CAFEAcA_Xeuh6AL5m5mDUd3zV=Ph1nT0ydQrnorP4Bqz2=VqSAQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_Xeuh6AL5m5mDUd3zV=Ph1nT0ydQrnorP4Bqz2=VqSAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qdev: obey no_user
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: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Am 07.01.2013 21:16, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 7 January 2013 20:12, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
>>> It seems to me like arbitrarily allowing the monitor to construct
>>> no-user devices isn't really the right way to attack the problem
>>> of "allow complete machine construction by management tools"...
>>
>> There is no such thing as a 'no-user' device.  It's a silly distinctio=
n
>> that has never had a consistent meaning.
>=20
> Then let's just rip that flag out completely.

That's a bad idea, given that we are about to make the CPU a device.

So yes, there are devices that are not meant to be instantiated more
than once (e.g., sclp-console). And there are devices that are not meant
to be instantiated by the user at all.

BTW this patch exposed that there is silly code in this function: When
the bus is NULL, it is initialized as the SysBus. But we all know that
SysBus is not hotplug-capable in the first place, so we can never
device_add on SysBus.

Regards,
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