From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40358) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1abNDd-00073d-KI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 01:58:42 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1abNDY-0006pp-LG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 01:58:41 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55489) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1abNDY-0006pi-Fr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 01:58:36 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:58:24 +0800 From: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20160303065824.GB30973@pxdev.xzpeter.org> References: <1456224728-28163-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <1456224728-28163-2-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <1456842059.3566.11.camel@redhat.com> <20160302033444.GA5730@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <20160302071540.GC5730@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <87fuw9p5xg.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20160302105558.GD5730@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <87fuw9kmjm.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20160303042754.GA30973@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <87k2lk9ij6.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k2lk9ij6.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] arm: gic: add GICType List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: wei@redhat.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, drjones@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Andrea Bolognani On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 07:34:21AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Peter Xu writes: > > I see that qapi-introspect branch is not there now. Is it merged to > > some other branch already? When will it be there in QEMU master > > (still not in, right?)? Just curious about it. > > Merged in commit 9e72681. > > Between the talk and the merge, query-schema got renamed to > query-qmp-schema. Sometimes I relapse. Sorry for the confusion! Got it! > > Now I can understand. For this case, I guess both ways work, right? > > Considering that if "query-schema" is still not there, I'd still > > prefer the "array" solution. At least, it can keep the schema > > several lines shorter (as you have mentioned already, it's *big* > > enough :). Also, even we would have "query-schema", I would still > > prefer not change schema unless necessary. What do you think? > > I can't say without understanding what the introspection question would > be. That needs actual thought, which is in short supply, especially > before breakfast ;) Yah, anyway, looking forward to further review comments! For now, maybe I can start to work on v2 if no big problem. If there is better way, v3 is ready to go. :) Peter