From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49455) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBjV0-0004nx-Ro for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 06:21:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBjUu-0000Wv-Tf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 06:21:34 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12459) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBjUu-0000Wl-Lt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 06:21:28 -0500 Message-ID: <52F4C1B1.302@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:21:21 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1391621709-15620-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <52F2795D.10708@redhat.com> <52F27A1D.2040504@suse.de> <52F27B1C.6010307@redhat.com> <52F27C7A.2040701@suse.de> <52F487AE.4060301@redhat.com> <52F4BEEA.5060606@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <52F4BEEA.5060606@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] scripts: Add qom-tree script as modern equivalent of info qtree List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, armbru@redhat.com, aliguori@amazon.com, lcapitulino@redhat.com Il 07/02/2014 12:09, Andreas F=C3=A4rber ha scritto: >> No matter how much I like QOM (I do), I would rather say that the all >> QOM grand plan has been "inconclusive". 99% in-tree uses of QOM are >> just a glorified qdev, buses and all. You shouldn't be surprised if >> people still care about the "legacy" qdev tree. > > I am not offended about people caring about legacy devices. I am > offended that people are trying to revert good QOM changes so that they > match their expectations from legacy concepts. I object to calling any change good if it causes a segfault anywhere=20 else in the code, even if it may be good from a QOM-only point of view.=20 After a month the change hasn't been reverted yet, so I don't think=20 people are trying too hard. But reverting is always one of the possible=20 solutions. Reapplying a reverted patch is easy. > I have stated at two KVM Forums already that qdev is dead. Define "qdev", please. > qdev.c to device.c? That's pretty easy to do if it solves these qdev > discussions... Let's stop talking about theory and let's look at the actual ccode, pleas= e.