Il 17/12/2012 18:08, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: >>> I would still prefer this logic to reside in virtio.c instead of being >>> duplicated in each bus. >>> My idea was to simply call qdev_reset_all on the binding from virtio.c >>> but other ideas wellcome. >> >> I think you're confusing "in the common superclass of all virtio >> transports" vs "in the common superclass of all virtio devices". >> virtio.c only implements a common superclass of all virtio devices; in >> fact, there is no common superclass of all virtio transports, and it is >> not possible without multiple inheritance or stuff like traits (you're >> already inheriting from PCIDevice for virtio-*-pci). >> >> Such common superclass, if it existed, would abstract stuff like "write >> zero to the status register" and would call qdev_reset_all. But again, >> we don't have this concept. > > There's some misunderstanding here. > > This is not about classes and stuff. > > Common code should be in a single place so everyone can reuse it through > function calls, not duplicated in all transports. > And yes we do have examples of this if you are asking for examples; > examples are functions like virtio_reset, virtio_set_status, etc.
We shouldn't need a virtio_reset at all. It should be invoked automatically by virtue of having a correct, complete description of virtio in terms of qdev buses. In other words, qdev_reset_all _is_ the common code you're seeking. Paolo
