From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45788)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1Ui6oP-0005EZ-91
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 13:39:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1Ui6oG-0003NA-Vz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 13:38:53 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36028)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1Ui6oG-0003MD-Mx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 13:38:44 -0400
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 20:39:11 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20130530173911.GC29091@redhat.com>
References: <1369911913-10934-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
	<1369911913-10934-6-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
	<51A77F13.3040400@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51A77F13.3040400@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 5/5] pc: pci-info add compat support
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 06:32:19PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 05/30/13 13:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 
> >  /* PC hardware initialisation */
> >  static void pc_init1(MemoryRegion *system_memory,
> > @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ static void pc_init1(MemoryRegion *system_memory,
> >      }
> >  
> >      guest_info = pc_guest_info_init(below_4g_mem_size, above_4g_mem_size);
> > +    guest_info->compat_v1_5 = guest_info_compat_v1_5;
> 
> I believe I can see the advantage of delaying this "compat_v1_5" until
> init-done-notifier time: init code gradually building up / rewriting
> guest_info doesn't have to tiptoe around conditions.
> 
> Style: would it be worth passing "guest_info_compat_v1_5" as a parameter
> to pc_guest_info_init()? Currently you have an _init() function that
> partially initializes the struct, and right after _init() returns you
> fill in what's still missing form basic initialization.

This seems to be the style used otherwise in this file ...

> No more comments for the series.
> 
> Thanks,
> Laszlo