On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 02:32:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> >>> if (TYPE_PC_DIMM) {
> >>> pc_dimm_plug()
> >>> /* do here additional concrete machine specific things */
> >>> } else if (TYPE_VIRTIO_MEM) {
> >>> virtio_mem_plug() <- do forwarding in there
> >>> /* and do here additional concrete machine specific things */
> >>> } else if (TYPE_CPU) {
> >>> cpu_plug()
> >>> /* do here additional concrete machine specific things */
> >>> }
> >>
> >> That will result in a lot of duplicate code - for every machine we
> >> support (dimm/virtio-mem/virtio-pmem/*add more memory devices here*) -
> >> virtio-mem and virtio-pmem could most probably share the code.
> > maybe or maybe not, depending on if pmem endups as memory device or
> > separate controller. And even with duplication, machine code would
> > be easy to follow just down one explicit call chain.
>
> Not 100% convinced but I am now going into that direction.
Can this go into DeviceClass? Failover has the same need to
allocate/free resources for vfio without a full realize/unrealize.
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
