Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Feb 8

[Markus Armbruster]

Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> writes:

> On 02/08/2011 11:13 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Chris Wright<address@hidden>  writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>    
>>> - qdev/vmstate both examples of partially completed work that need more
>>>    attention
>>>      
>> As far as qdev's concerned, I can see two kinds of to-dos:
>>
>> * Further develop qdev so that more of the machine init code can becomes
>>    qdev declarations.  Specific ideas welcome.  Patches even more, as
>>    always.
>>    
>
> I think we need to improve the i440fx modelling as a lot of the stuff
> done in the machine init for pc really belongs as part of the i440fx.
>
> In theory, creating an i440fx ought to be essentially equivalent to
> the machine init function today.
>
>> * Convert the remaining devices.  They are typically used only with
>>    oddball machines, which makes the conversion hard to test for anyone
>>    who's not already using them.
>>
>>    I've said this before: at some point in time (sooner rather than
>>    later, if you ask me), we need to shoot the stragglers.  I'm pretty
>>    optimistic that any victims worth keeping will receive timely
>>    attention then.
>>
>> Anything else?
>>    
>
> We need to unify the property model.  We have QemuOpts, qdev
> properties, and QObject which basically reinvents variant typing three
> different ways.

Make it four: QEMUOptionParameter.

Now let me make it three again.  Unlike the others, a qdev property
describes a perfectly ordinary, non-variant struct member.  It's poor
man's reflection, not a variant type.