From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43156) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RbYAn-0007GA-8W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:50:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RbYAh-000138-JY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:50:05 -0500 Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:59235) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RbYAh-000132-DQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:49:59 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e8.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:49:58 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id pBGDnCx1318564 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:49:12 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id pBGDnB11016855 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:49:11 -0500 Message-ID: <4EEB4C56.8020400@us.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:49:10 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1323721784-704-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <4EEA3813.80006@us.ibm.com> <4EEB1277.4070803@redhat.com> <4EEB1ABB.50204@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4EEB1ABB.50204@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 00/20] qom: dynamic properties and composition tree List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf , Peter Maydell , Stefan Hajnoczi , Jan Kiszka , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino , Markus Armbruster On 12/16/2011 04:17 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 12/16/2011 10:42 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>> > >>> > Applied. >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > >>> > Anthony Liguori >> So you pushed this with qdev_property_add_child() calls spread all over >> the place instead of being treated like other properties?:-( > > I think actually this is not the biggest problem. child properties are dynamic, > and it's not a problem IMO if they are created like that. > > I don't like that _link_ properties are spread all over the place instead of > being treated like other properties. Link properties are static, and PROP_PTR > properties could often be converted to links. With your new series, we should be able to add a DEFINE_PROP_LINK() that does the right thing I guess. I've got no objection to that. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > I'm playing with separating the "legacy" and "static" property concepts so that > we can head in that direction. I hope to send out an RFC in an hour or so. > > Paolo >