On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 08:19:31AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > > Apart from that I'm pretty happy with the endpoint you reach. I'm a > > bit less convinced about the path taken to get there. I'm not sure if > > it's worth the churn of doing this reorg, but I think we'd get there > > more clearly and with less intermediate abstraction violations if it > > was done by: > > > > 1. Introduce the xics qom interface, but have it implemented by > > the existing xics object > > 2. Change the ics and icp to only interact with the xics object > > via the qom interface > > 3. Implement the qom interface in the spapr machine > > 4. Change to spapr directly creating ics and icp objects, > > pointing back to itself as the xics interface provider > > 5. Remove the xics concrete object > > So that's a full rewrite of the patchset to reach the same point. > I can only grumble for such a proposal :/
Yeah.. point taken.
> > This also has the advantage that the qom path changing parts are
> > isolated to step (4), meaning problems with migration should be easier
> > to localize.
>
> and migration works.
Oh, that's a nice surprise. Ok never mind about the rework, just
address the other comments and repost.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
