On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:26:07 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:48:09PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:36:52 +0100 > > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > Il 17/12/2013 20:38, Anthony Liguori ha scritto: > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> > > > > wrote: > > > >> Il 17/12/2013 00:26, Anthony Liguori ha scritto: > > > >>> Sharing hot plug code is a good thing. Making hotplug a qdev-level > > > >>> concept seems like a bad thing to me. > > > >> > > > >> Can you explain what you mean? > > > > > > > > The question is whether "hotpluggable" as a property applies to all > > > > devices or not. > > I think Andreas asked me to provide "hotpluggable" property to > > distinguish hotpluggable vs not hotpluggable DimmDevice via qom interface. > > > > > > > > > > But hotplug is strictly a bus level concept. It's a sequence of > > > > events that correspond to what happens when you add a new device to a > > > > bus after power on. > > > > > > Hotplugging a device is a special case of plugging a device. If a bus > > > or device only supports cold-plug, that can be done using > > > "bc->allow_hotplug = false" or "dc->hotpluggable = false". > > Do we need per instance ability to set "hotpluggable" property? > > For example board might want to mark some CPUs as not hotpluggable. > > It could be useful. > In real life same device can be on-board or on a plugin card. > But it's not a must, we survived without this so far. > > So maybe start not supporting it, add later? > Yes, that's surely could be done later > > > > > > Paolo > > >