On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 03:07:53PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 08.06.2018 14:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 02:32:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> if (TYPE_PC_DIMM) {
> >>>>> pc_dimm_plug()
> >>>>> /* do here additional concrete machine specific things */
> >>>>> } else if (TYPE_VIRTIO_MEM) {
> >>>>> virtio_mem_plug() <- do forwarding in there
> >>>>> /* and do here additional concrete machine specific things */
> >>>>> } else if (TYPE_CPU) {
> >>>>> cpu_plug()
> >>>>> /* do here additional concrete machine specific things */
> >>>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> That will result in a lot of duplicate code - for every machine we
> >>>> support (dimm/virtio-mem/virtio-pmem/*add more memory devices here*) -
> >>>> virtio-mem and virtio-pmem could most probably share the code.
> >>> maybe or maybe not, depending on if pmem endups as memory device or
> >>> separate controller. And even with duplication, machine code would
> >>> be easy to follow just down one explicit call chain.
> >>
> >> Not 100% convinced but I am now going into that direction.
> >
> > Can this go into DeviceClass? Failover has the same need to
> > allocate/free resources for vfio without a full realize/unrealize.
> >
>
> Conceptually, I would have called here something like
>
> virtio_mem_plug() ...
>
> Which would end up calling memory_device_plug() and triggering the
> target hotplug handler.
>
> I assume this can also be done from a device class callback.
>
> So we would need a total of 3 callbacks for
>
> a) pre_plug
> b) plug
> c) unplug
>
> In addition, unplug requests might be necessary, so
>
> d) unplug_request
Right - basically HotplugHandlerClass.
> >> --
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> David / dhildenb
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
