On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 06:55:46PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 17.12.2012 16:45, schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin: > > diff --git a/hw/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio-pci.c > > index 3ea4140..63ae888 100644 > > --- a/hw/virtio-pci.c > > +++ b/hw/virtio-pci.c > > @@ -98,34 +98,34 @@ bool virtio_is_big_endian(void); > > > > /* virtio device */ > > > > -static void virtio_pci_notify(void *opaque, uint16_t vector) > > +static void virtio_pci_notify(DeviceState *d, uint16_t vector) > > { > > - VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = opaque; > > + VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = container_of(d, VirtIOPCIProxy, pci_dev.qdev); > > Nack. This is going the wrong direction QOM-wise and you among all > others know that from PCI host bridges! > > A core issue being addressed here is that virtio devices are modelled > neither in the regular qdev way nor the QOM way.
No, the core issue is unsafe void * use. > They don't inherit > correctly and use their own set of common-init functions - one side > effect of Fred's series was to make them first-class QOM citizens. QOM > like qdev doesn't support multi-inheritence, so the discussed approach > Fred is trying to implement is to have both a VirtioDevice as base class > for Virtio{Block,...}Device and PCIDevice/SysBusDevice/... as base class > for a virtio bridge device with a virtio-bus, on which only virtio is > spoken and pure VirtioDevices can sit (which as you say have device IDs > but not all PCI properties). > What remained under discussion AFAIU was how to expose this modelling > construct to the user - Peter aiming to expose this to the user and me > proposing to hide this (for PCI) as an internal implementation detail. > > Whether DeviceState or a new VirtioDevice or something else is being > used in the API is a different issue that I don't really mind. > > Andreas Me neither just get rid of void* > -- > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg