On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:55:56 +0100
Konrad Frederic <fred.kon...@greensocs.com> wrote:
> On 23/11/2012 13:08, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:50:50 +0100
> > fred.kon...@greensocs.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >> +/* Create a virtio bus. */
> >> +VirtioBus *virtio_bus_new(DeviceState *host, const VirtioBusInfo *info)
> >> +{
> >> + /*
> >> + * This is needed, as we want to have different names for each
> >> virtio-bus.
> >> + * If we don't do that, we can't add more than one VirtIODevice.
> >> + */
> >> + static int next_virtio_bus;
> >> + char *bus_name = g_strdup_printf("virtio-bus.%d", next_virtio_bus++);
> > This still has the overflow/id-reuse problem, hasn't it?
> >
> >> +
> >> + BusState *qbus = qbus_create(TYPE_VIRTIO_BUS, host, bus_name);
> >> + VirtioBus *bus = VIRTIO_BUS(qbus);
> >> + bus->info = info;
> >> + qbus->allow_hotplug = 0;
> >> + bus->bus_in_use = false;
> >> + DPRINTF("%s bus created\n", bus_name);
> >> + return bus;
> >> +}
> > Don't you need a way to destroy the bus again when the proxy device is
> > hotunplugged?
> >
> Is the virtio-pci-* proxy currently supporting hotunplugging ?
>
No idea about virtio-pci devices, but since virtio-ccw will support
hotunplugging, we'll certainly need an interface for that.
