Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] tests/qdev-global-props: fixes due to machine conversion to QOM

[Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.a@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 18:11 +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi Marcel,
> 
> Am 11.03.2014 16:35, schrieb Marcel Apfelbaum:
> > To be applied on top of:
> >     hw/boards: converted current_machine to be an instance of MachineClass
> > Rebased for qom-next branch of Andrea's QOM tree.
> > 
> > Patch 1: allows to assign QEMUMachine "automatically",
> >          and not only in vl.c (we need this in tests)
> > Patch 2: converts "none-machine" to QOM
> > Patch 3: Fixes qdev-global-props by adding the "none-machine"
> >          to the tree.
> > 
> > Cc: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de>
> > 
> > Marcel Apfelbaum (3):
> >   hw/machine: move QEMUMachine assignment into the core machine
> >   hw/null-machine: Convert null machine to QOM
> >   tests/qdev-global-props: Manually add an instance of a QOM machine
> 
> It seems I am to blame for most of the problems you are working around
> now, so let's not be too shy to correct myself and make things easier on
> us. ;)
Well, I am on the "follow the rules" and not on "make the rules" stage yet,
so I am trying to adapt... :)

> 
> I'd rather not take the class_base_init patch - for one class_init would
> be more correct,
Yes, it would be, I tried it, but it didn't work :(
The code does not allow the derived class to use base's class_init function.
This is the only reason I chose base_class_init.

Do you know any other way to do it? (for my personal knowledge - it seems
a very handy tool)

> but for another I generally don't like putting such
> requirements onto use of a base class. The null machine seems indeed low
> hanging fruit for further cleanups - but can't we start by making
> MachineClass used instead of QEMUMachine? Then we won't need to assign
> mc->qemu_machine any more and can start dropping machine_none.
This is indeed my next step after eliminating QemuOpts usage
and replace it with QOM machine queries
(should be quick, the patches were reviewed once already).


Thanks,
Marcel
> 
> Regards,
> Andreas
>