On 08/23/2010 09:00 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/23/2010 04:48 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
The fundamental issue is: every function (minus trivial ones) in
the device models code should have a state reference. That state
reference should inherit from a DeviceState. If this statement
isn't true, then the device has been modelled in qdev incorrectly.
Using this test, quite a lot of the "converted" devices are being
modelled incorrectly.
Is a "state reference" allowed to have a pointer to the state, or
reach it in some other way (for example, static storage for
singleton devices)?
No. If this was C++, then the statement would be: device have to be
implemented in terms of objects that inherit from Device. Device is
our common base object.
so,
struct MyDevicestate {
struct DeviceState device_state;
bool *some_bit;
};
bad, while
struct MyDevicestate {
struct DeviceState device_state;
bool some_bit;
};
good?
And the next logical question is whether:
struct MyDeviceState {
DeviceState qdev;
OtherState *s;
};
Is bad? The answer would depend on whether OtherState implemented
methods or not. If OtherState has no methods, it's fine. If it has
methods, it's bad.
Isn't "save/restore works" an equivalent statement to "device state
is reachable from the DeviceState"?
I'm not sure I can connect the dots here as I'm not sure what follows
if your assertion is true.
If save/restore works then all state is reachable from one point?
Presumable DeviceState?
I really don't see why the state has to be in the DeviceState
subclass. We're probably talking past each other here due to some
confusion in terms.
Probably. Let's say that 'structs' are containers of primatives that
have no methods associated with them. 'objects' are structs that have
methods and potentially constructors/destructors.
Devices can contain references to structs and objects. If a Device
contains a reference to an object, the object should be stored in a
BusState which is a container of Devices. Therefore, the object should
inherit from Device.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
