On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:07:23AM +0000, Gonglei (Arei) wrote: [...] > > > > Also, this function (the property setter) is where I expected > > > > add_boot_device_path() to be called, instead of requiring every device > > > > to add a reset handler and call add_boot_device_path() manually. > > > > > > > Optional, I have said in previous mail. I think we should lay call > > > add_boot_device_path() in $device_set_bootindex(), not the common > > > function set_bootindex(). We can save the unitariness of a function, > > > right? > > > > If all (or most) $device_set_bootindex() functions you are adding look > > exactly the same (with just a different struct field), we can have a > > device_add_bootindex_property() wrapper like I suggested on my reply to > > 02/27, instead of copying/pasting the same setter/getter code on every > > device. > > > I want to know where the device_add_bootindex_property() be called? > which assure that new bootindex take effect during vm rebooting?
In exactly the same place you were going to call object_property_add() (instance_init). It would be just a wrapper around object_property_add() that won't require you to write new setter/getter functions for each device. -- Eduardo
