qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC for-2.3? 0/8] prep: Fix pc87312 for -device


From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC for-2.3? 0/8] prep: Fix pc87312 for -device usage
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:09:14 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)

Andreas Färber <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 30.03.2015 um 18:12 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>> On 30/03/2015 16:25, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Andreas Färber <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hello Markus et al.,
>>>>
>>>> This series attempts to fix the -device pc87312 issues you reported.
>>>>
>>>> I can't add alias properties for devices that don't get created
>>>> before realize.
>>>> Therefore this involves moving code for various ISA devices, to enable us
>>>> to initialize the objects early for alias properties and realizing them
>>>> as part of the composite device once the configuration is known, also 
>>>> fixing
>>>> error propagation while at it. Probably needs a further iteration.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's terribly invasive, that's why the code was as it is.
>>>> But the code movements are quite trivial, as long as no in-air
>>>> conflicts occur.
>>>
>>> Pity we have to move the state structs to the header, but that what we
>>> have to do to make them embeddable.  And I understand embedding is how
>>> we do sub-devices ("part of" instead of "plugged into").
>>>
>>> Your changes are quite regular.  They don't look scary to me, but that
>>> could be just ignorance.  They're non-trivial enough though to make wary
>>> of merging them for 2.3 this late.
>> 
>> The question is really: what is gained from this series as of 2.3?  Is
>> anything actually using "-device pc87312"?  It was broken before IIUC,
>> so it can remain broken for one more version.  Markus's patches would
>> just add one more "git revert" to this series, basically.
>
> Well, my intent was to avoid adding FIXMEs by fixing it properly right
> away.

Appreciated!

>       But I don't see an urgent need as long as it's start-up errors and
> not a device_add-induced crash (not sure here, would need to re-read
> Markus' thread). Agree that it's getting late.

I'm not aware of a device_add crash with this device.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]