On (Fri) Mar 26 2010 [11:29:03], Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> 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.
I've no problem doing it either way - whatever you prefer is fine.
BTW these are two distinct events already - failure in initialising a
device and failure in initialising a port. Do you think these should be
separate as well?
> 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.
I think it's cleaner to club everything; but basically I'll go with
whatever you say. I've no problem waiting.
> Any comments, Anthony?
Amit
