From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49972) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsLJF-0005B8-5A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:36:46 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsLJD-00058W-5d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:36:45 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56289 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsLJC-00058D-T4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:36:43 -0500 Message-ID: <50EB4DF4.6060308@suse.de> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 23:36:36 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1355760006-891-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <874nisvlfv.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <87ip78u50m.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <50EB47CC.6030507@suse.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qdev: obey no_user List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Christian Borntraeger , Anthony Liguori , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" Am 07.01.2013 23:20, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 7 January 2013 22:10, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: >> Am 07.01.2013 21:16, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> On 7 January 2013 20:12, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>> Peter Maydell 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 distinct= ion >>>> that has never had a consistent meaning. >>> >>> 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. >=20 > We already have a pile of devices which the user can't usefully > use -device on...CPUs would be just another one, right? Not sure what you're arguing for here? The CPU is the worst example of a device I know in that it is not limited to a particular bus and messes with global state and threads. Also, I'm sure that there will be objects/devices that a management tool is not supposed to mess with either, once we start using object_initialize() more. If we agree that "no_user =3D 1" is not ideal or used inconsistently, the= n we should IMO talk about how to replace/amend it and not conclude to just rip it out and leave users without sensible error messages while praying for The Omnipotent Management Tool that AFAICS we don't have today... 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