Il lun 7 dic 2020, 17:57 Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> ha scritto:

> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 17:43:16 +0100
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 07/12/20 17:24, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > >> +void qtest_server_init(const char *qtest_chrdev, const char
> *qtest_log, Error **errp)
> > >> +{
> > >> +    Chardev *chr;
> > >> +
> > >> +    chr = qemu_chr_new("qtest", qtest_chrdev, NULL);
> > >> +
> > >> +    if (chr == NULL) {
> > >> +        error_setg(errp, "Failed to initialize device for qtest:
> \"%s\"",
> > >> +                   qtest_chrdev);
> > >> +        return;
> > >> +    }
> > >> +
> > >> +    qtest_server_start(chr, qtest_log, errp);
> > > why not create qtest object here instead of trying to preserve old way,
> > > or create it directly at the place that calls qtest_server_init()?
> >
> > Because I wasn't sure of where to put it in the QOM object tree.  So I
> > punted and left it for later.
>
> but you implicitly decided where it should be (with -object qtest),
> it goes to /objects.
> So I'd wouldn't put anywhere else to be consistent.
>

No, /objects is for stuff created with -object exclusively. I suppose I
could have the "well-known path" be /machine/qtest, and it would be either
a child (for -qtest) or a link to /objects/some-id (for -object qtest).
Should I implement that (as a separate patch on top of this one)?

Paolo



> >
> > Paolo
> >
>
>