> +#define TYPE_VHOST_USER_INPUT_PCI "vhost-user-input-pci"
Patch $subject mismatch.
> +struct VHostUserInput {
> + VirtIOInput parent_obj;
> +
> + VhostUserBackend *vhost;
> +};
Nothing input specific here ...
> +static void vhost_input_change_active(VirtIOInput *vinput)
> +{
> + VHostUserInput *vhi = VHOST_USER_INPUT(vinput);
> +
> + if (!vhi->vhost) {
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (vinput->active) {
> + vhost_user_backend_start(vhi->vhost);
> + } else {
> + vhost_user_backend_stop(vhi->vhost);
> + }
> +}
... and here ...
> +static const VMStateDescription vmstate_vhost_input = {
> + .name = "vhost-user-input",
> + .unmigratable = 1,
> +};
... and here ...
> +static void vhost_input_is_busy(const Object *obj, const char *name,
> + Object *val, Error **errp)
> +{
> + VHostUserInput *vhi = VHOST_USER_INPUT(obj);
> +
> + if (vhi->vhost) {
> + error_setg(errp, "can't use already busy vhost-user");
> + } else {
> + qdev_prop_allow_set_link_before_realize(obj, name, val, errp);
> + }
> +}
... likewise ...
So, maybe it makes sense to have a abstact base class for vhost-user
devices? And possibly move the vhost-backend code to the base class
then?
cheers,
Gerd
