On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:56:20 +0530 Amit Shah <amit.s...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On (Fri) Mar 26 2010 [10:14:02], Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > > > > + > > > > > +VIRTIO_SERIAL > > > > > +------------- > > > > > > > > It should be VIRTIO_SERIAL_ADD. > > > > > > What about other events that VIRTIO_SERIAL generates? > > > > We don't address this problem currently, maybe an integration with qdev > > will do, but I have to think more about it. > > So should I just keep it as VIRTIO_SERIAL for now? With new events also > riding on this one? I don't like this because with the current events code this will lead to confusion, as you're using a single event to notify different things. My suggestion for the immediate term is to do what we have been doing so far, ie. call it VIRTIO_SERIAL_ADD. Worst case here is: we add a new way to group events which requires a new VIRTIO_SERIAL event, in this case we could emit both, the new VIRTIO_SERIAL and the old VIRTIO_SERIAL_ADD. The latter would be deprecated too. Or, if you can wait I can _try_ to solve this problem next week, although I have no idea how hard this is going to be. Any comments, Anthony?
