Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 08/28] virtio-net: add bootindex to qom property

[Gonglei (Arei)]

Hi,

> > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 08/28] virtio-net: add bootindex to qom
> > property
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:37:16PM +0800, address@hidden wrote:
> > > From: Gonglei <address@hidden>
> > >
> > > Add a qom property with the same name 'bootindex',
> > > when we remove it form qdev property, things will
> > > continue to work just fine, and we can use qom features
> > > which are not supported by qdev property.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gonglei <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c
> > > index 78dcd68..0779d28 100644
> > > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c
> > > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c
> > > @@ -1454,9 +1454,14 @@ static void
> virtio_net_pci_class_init(ObjectClass
> > *klass, void *data)
> > >  static void virtio_net_pci_instance_init(Object *obj)
> > >  {
> > >      VirtIONetPCI *dev = VIRTIO_NET_PCI(obj);
> > > -    object_initialize(&dev->vdev, sizeof(dev->vdev), TYPE_VIRTIO_NET);
> > > -    object_property_add_child(obj, "virtio-backend",
> OBJECT(&dev->vdev),
> > NULL);
> > > -    object_unref(OBJECT(&dev->vdev));
> > > +    VirtIONet *n = &dev->vdev;
> > > +
> > > +    object_initialize(n, sizeof(dev->vdev), TYPE_VIRTIO_NET);
> > > +    object_property_add_child(obj, "virtio-backend", OBJECT(n), NULL);
> > > +    object_unref(OBJECT(n));
> > > +    device_add_bootindex_property(obj, &n->nic_conf.bootindex,
> > > +                                  "bootindex",
> "/address@hidden",
> > > +                                  DEVICE(n), NULL);
> >
> > Is anybody able to explain what would be the user-visible effects of
> > simply using dev as the parameter to device_add_bootindex_property() and
> > add_boot_device_path(), instead of dev->vdev?
> 
> AFAICT, using dev instead of dev->vdev will cause that one virtio-net device
> have two bootindex entries in the global fw_boot_order list.
> 
> > Don't they have exactly the same fw dev path?
> >
> No, they have the same fw dev path.
> 
After my patch series:
 [PATCH v2 0/9] virtio: fix virtio child recount in transports

This would not be a question in my next version, I will drop it. :)

Best regards,
-Gonglei