From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59124) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coS0H-0007h8-UU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 05:47:30 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coS0E-0003O3-RT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 05:47:29 -0400 Received: from mail-he1eur01on0104.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.0.104]:18560 helo=EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1coS0E-0003NT-B4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 05:47:26 -0400 Message-ID: <1489657576.561.24.camel@nokia.com> From: Janne Huttunen Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:46:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1489562641.15659.16.camel@redhat.com> References: <1489510640.8844.18.camel@redhat.com> <1489561105.24841.25.camel@nokia.com> <1489562641.15659.16.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH 0/6] "bootonceindex" property List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, 2017-03-15 at 08:24 +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > > The short answer: emulating real hardware. >=20 > Ok, that is reason enough. >=20 > Adding bootonceindex everywhere doesn't look like the best plan to me > though.=C2=A0=C2=A0Possibly we can pimp up bootindex in a backward-compat= ible > way? > Something like bootindex=3D[.] ? That would (likely) avoid modifying all devices, but wouldn't that make the 'bootindex' property a string (now: 'int32') and thus change the QOM API? I did consider making device_add_bootindex_property() to automatically add the new property too, but since that API is currently such that the _caller_ provides the name of the added property, it would mean that the function would need to generate the second name using some magic mangling rule and that didn't seem very nice to me. Of course the API could be modified so that the caller provides two names, but then we are already back to modifying all relevant devices.