From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50992) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZBGD-0006tT-Rp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:57:22 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZBG9-0002mY-VW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:57:21 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40162) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZBG9-0002l7-Po for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:57:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:57:04 +0800 From: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20180110075704.GG5984@xz-mi> References: <20171219084557.9801-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20171219084557.9801-5-peterx@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v6 04/27] qobject: let object_property_get_str() use new API List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , "Daniel P . Berrange" , Paolo Bonzini , Fam Zheng , Juan Quintela , mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Laurent Vivier , Markus Armbruster , marcandre.lureau@redhat.com, "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 04:53:40PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 12/19/2017 02:45 AM, Peter Xu wrote: > > We can simplify object_property_get_str() using the new > > qobject_get_try_str(). > > > > Reviewed-by: Fam Zheng > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu > > --- > > qom/object.c | 9 +++------ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake > > I'm not opposed to your patch split (particularly since it makes > backports easier if it just needs the new function and then your later > uses of the new function, without touching existing uses); but I might > have merged this with the previous patch so that the new API has a > client right away, proving why the new API is worthwhile as part of its > introduction. Sure, I'll follow the rule next time. (I can simply squash it but I got a few r-bs for separate patches already, so I'll keep them separated for now) Thanks, -- Peter Xu