From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51443) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S0yNB-0005ny-ET for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:51:58 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S0yN5-0001St-GB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:51:57 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29322) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S0yN5-0001Sj-8O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:51:51 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:51:51 -0200 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20120224145151.53f5e1de@doriath.home> In-Reply-To: <4F47B7B8.505@us.ibm.com> References: <1330092792-22455-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <1330092792-22455-3-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <4F47B7B8.505@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] boards: rename machine type functions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:15:52 -0600 Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 02/24/2012 10:12 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 24 February 2012 14:13, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > >> Perform the following renames: > >> > >> o qemu_register_machine() -> machine_register() > >> o find_machine() -> machine_find() > >> o find_default_machine() -> machine_find_default() > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino > >> 52 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-) > > > > I said I was going to nack the next change-whole-tree > > change, so here it is: nack. > > > > At some point we're going to have to actually start > > converting boards to be QOM objects themselves, but > > (a) I hope we can make that incremental so we can do > > things in batches the way we did with MemoryRegion > > conversions and (b) until then the qemu_register_machine > > rename just looks like unnecessary churn to me. > > I think I agree with you here. I don't see the value compared to the churn here > given that we're going to have to touch all of this again anyway soon. Do you guys see value in patch 5/5, which moves the machine function to the boards file? If you don't I'll keep only patch 1/5 (which can be submitted to qemu-trivial).