On 08/24/2015 10:14 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:37:06 +0800 > Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 08/21/2015 05:43 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:05:47 +0800 >>> Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> + k->has_modern_state && >>>> + k->has_modern_state(qbus->parent); >>>> +} >>> I don't really like this "modern_state" stuff (which is pci specific) >>> creeping into core. >>> >>> How about introducing "extra_state" and/or "extra_queue_state" (or >>> something like that) instead? >>> >> Ok, if you don't like pci specific name, maybe something like >> "virtio_1_state" is better? > I was thinking more along the lines of "transport wants to save/restore > additional state for the device" - which is not neccessarily depending > on virtio-1. It would be good if a transport can extend the state > without needlessly introducing incompatibilities.
I see. > > pci can handle its modern state via this then and encapsulate it. > Ok. Will have a try.
