Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 06/16] apic: Introduce backend/frontend infrastructure for KVM reuse

[Avi Kivity]

On 12/20/2011 02:38 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> That was v1 of my patches. Avi didn't like it, I tried it like this, and
>> in the end I had to agree. So, no, I don't think we want such a model.
>
>
> Yes, we do :-)
>
> The in-kernel APIC is a different implementation of the APIC device. 
> It's not an "accelerator" for the userspace APIC.

A different implementation but not a different device.  Device == spec.

>
> All that you're doing here is reinventing qdev.  You're defining your
> own type system (APICBackend), creating a new regression system for
> it, and then defining your own factory function for creating it
> (through a qdev property).
>
> I'm struggling to understand the reason to avoid using the
> infrastructure we already have to do all of this.

Not every table of function pointers has to be done through qdev (not
that I feel strongly about this - only that there is just one APIC device).

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function