Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On 7 January 2013 19:32, Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> writes: >> >>> since >>> >>> commit 18b6dade8c0799c48f5c5e124b8c407cd5e22e96 >>> qdev: refactor device creation to allow bus_info to be set only in class >>> >>> A user can specify a device that is no_user. >>> For example on my i386 box, I can add a 2nd kvmvapic device. >>> >>> This patch checks for no-user and rejects the device_add. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> >> >> I specifically broke this when QOM was introduced because no_user >> precludes a management tool from constructing a machine directlt. > > You can't do that anyway... > >> The real problem you're trying to solve is that it's an error to have >> two kvmvapic devices, not that users shouldn't be allowed to create them >> via -device. > > That's not the only thing no-user gets used for. A bunch of the > ARM sysbus devices have it set presumably because it's just > flat impossible for a user to correctly create and wire in a sysbus > device at all, so you might as well not confuse matters by listing > them in '-device help' output. (We're not consistent about that, > though.) > > 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. There's really no good reason why kvmvapic isn't supported by -device other than it was an implementation short cut. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > -- PMM
