From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57244) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsJdE-0007CZ-OD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:49:19 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsJdC-0000AG-Rx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:49:16 -0500 Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.137]:38042) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsJdC-0000A6-OH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:49:14 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e7.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:49:13 -0500 Received: from d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (d01relay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.237]) by d01dlp03.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 368A7C9004A for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:49:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r07Kn3qF334168 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:49:04 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r07Kn3qR004703 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:49:03 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori In-Reply-To: References: <1355760006-891-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <874nisvlfv.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <87ip78u50m.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:48:56 -0600 Message-ID: <8738ycen2f.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" Peter Maydell writes: > 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 distinction >> that has never had a consistent meaning. > > Then let's just rip that flag out completely. I have no objection to that. I would have done that but it wasn't easy to script at the time. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > -- PMM