On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:36:48AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 23.04.2018 05:28, David Gibson wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 02:34:55PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >> Let's allow to query the MemoryHotplugState from the machine. > >> > >> This allows us to generically detect if a certain machine has support > >> for memory devices, and to generically manage it (find free address > >> range, plug/unplug a memory region). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> > > > > So, we're creating a hook where it seems very likely that the only > > implementationss will be simply to retrieve the right field from the > > machine specific structure. > > > > So.. should we instead just move the hotplug_memory structure to the > > based MachineState type? > > It allows us in patch nr. 3 to report different error messages. > > "Not supported" vs. "Not enabled (maxmem)". > > We could also handle that via a simple boolean flag inside of the > struct. What do you think?
A third option would be to make it a pointer, rather than directly
embedded in the MachineState. That would also avoid the extra
allocation for machines that don't use it.
--
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
