On 03/26/2010 09:29 AM, 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.
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?
The virtio serial events bother me in a number of ways. Ports being
added should just be more generic (we should generate an event any time
a device is added to a bus).
Port disconnected/reconnect ought to be something that we propagate via
a char device but I understand the limitations of the current code.
I'd like to see us try to at least address the add/remove case better
and we may just have to live with the connect/disconnect stuff.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
