Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > Il 12/12/2012 18:58, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >> It should be equally >> valid to just use the PCI transport plugged into a VirtioDevice, >> both of which were created by the user with -device [and for >> new transports, separate transport and backend should be the >> standard]. That means the virtio-bus interface needs a way for >> the backend to announce to the transport what it is so that >> the PCI transport can set the right PCI IDs. > > There is such an interface (the device_id, aka VIRTIO_ID_*). Then > virtio-pci needs a mapping from the device_id to the (default) > vendor_id/device_id/class tuple.
Why? I think it's perfectly fine to have to specify a device ID for virtio-pci. The way virtio-pci is designed is such that every device that uses virtio-pci ends up looking like an independent PCI device. We should always have virtio-blk-pci, virtio-net-pci, etc. The goal of this refactoring should not be to eliminate that. But these devices should be trivial to implement and modelled in a sane way. I don't think we should be trying to solve the problem of making virtio-pci "easy to use". Why would you say: -device virtio-pci,id=foo -device virtio-blk,bus=foo When you can just say: -device virtio-pci-blk I think we're optimizing for the wrong thing here... Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Paolo
