Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> writes: > On 02/08/2011 11:13 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Chris Wright<chr...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> [...] >> >>> - qdev/vmstate both examples of partially completed work that need more >>> attention >>> >> As far as qdev's concerned, I can see two kinds of to-dos: >> >> * Further develop qdev so that more of the machine init code can becomes >> qdev declarations. Specific ideas welcome. Patches even more, as >> always. >> > > I think we need to improve the i440fx modelling as a lot of the stuff > done in the machine init for pc really belongs as part of the i440fx. > > In theory, creating an i440fx ought to be essentially equivalent to > the machine init function today. > >> * Convert the remaining devices. They are typically used only with >> oddball machines, which makes the conversion hard to test for anyone >> who's not already using them. >> >> I've said this before: at some point in time (sooner rather than >> later, if you ask me), we need to shoot the stragglers. I'm pretty >> optimistic that any victims worth keeping will receive timely >> attention then. >> >> Anything else? >> > > We need to unify the property model. We have QemuOpts, qdev > properties, and QObject which basically reinvents variant typing three > different ways.
Make it four: QEMUOptionParameter. Now let me make it three again. Unlike the others, a qdev property describes a perfectly ordinary, non-variant struct member. It's poor man's reflection, not a variant type. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
