From: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>
To: "Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lureau@gmail.com>,
"Eduardo Habkost" <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>,
QEMU <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] qom: Replace INTERFACE_CHECK with OBJECT_CHECK
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:19:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <40730966-469a-de4d-29bd-03c7c409b3cf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ+F1CLo=mz6LhRTx0PTF-NiabiaCNwm-U=7VEhQXUmryQoqvw@mail.gmail.com>
On 9/16/20 11:31 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:35 PM Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com
> <mailto:ehabkost@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> This series replaces INTERFACE_CHECK with OBJECT_CHECK because
> both macros are exactly the same.
>
> The last patch is a new run of the OBJECT_CHECK ->
> DECLARE*_CHECKER* converter script that will convert the former
> INTERFACE_CHECK-based macros.
>
>
> Well, at least having a different macro allows to tweak qom
> implementation or replace it with something different more easily.
>
> I have some wip branch somewhere where I actually made Interface a
> different beast than Object (it was saving some fields, and avoiding
> some potentially wrong casts iirc - I didn't bother to upstream that
> yet). Also I have a different branch where I played with GObject to
> replace qom. In both cases, your proposal would have, or would make, the
> work more complicated.
Considering "wip branch not bothered to upstream" as "fork",
your comment from [*] applies here...
You can't blame upstream from doing cleanups and modernization, or
stagnating. Forks are forks, with all the pain they carry. If they
want to avoid the maintenance cost, they have to do the extra effort
to get it upstream. This is also a "sneaky way" to remind them that
effort is better spent in this direction.
[*] https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg720284.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-17 7:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-16 19:30 [PATCH 0/3] qom: Replace INTERFACE_CHECK with OBJECT_CHECK Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-16 19:30 ` [PATCH 1/3] qom: Correct object_class_dynamic_cast_assert() documentation Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-16 19:31 ` [PATCH 2/3] qom: Replace INTERFACE_CHECK with OBJECT_CHECK Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-16 19:31 ` [PATCH 3/3] [automated] Use DECLARE_*CHECKER* macros Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-16 21:31 ` [PATCH 0/3] qom: Replace INTERFACE_CHECK with OBJECT_CHECK Marc-André Lureau
2020-09-16 22:13 ` Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-17 7:19 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé [this message]
2020-09-17 7:25 ` Marc-André Lureau
2020-09-18 18:23 ` Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-17 7:05 ` Markus Armbruster
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=40730966-469a-de4d-29bd-03c7c409b3cf@redhat.com \
--to=philmd@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=marcandre.lureau@gmail.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).