From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46668)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1R4dMW-0004aJ-Vw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:42:09 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1R4dMV-0008As-Tp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:42:08 -0400
Received: from mail-yw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.213.45]:63825)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1R4dMV-0008Am-OE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:42:07 -0400
Received: by ywm39 with SMTP id 39so3813074ywm.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E73987A.1090803@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:42:02 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4E7219B4.9050109@us.ibm.com>
	<20110915153838.GE11524@redhat.com>	<4E7228BC.9030104@us.ibm.com>
	<20110915165921.GF11524@redhat.com>	<4E723B1B.5070805@codemonkey.ws>	<20110915202907.GG11524@redhat.com>	<CAFEAcA9x+y3+qk1FEivASd63nOF-ONRz+GPTSNu_5x4Vn=UaYA@mail.gmail.com>	<20110916163326.GA11160@redhat.com>	<CAFEAcA9aO99e-KYT5S2DtRqDej5JmvVgdCgu6+Gj-dmmMVm4Aw@mail.gmail.com>	<4E73909B.3050900@codemonkey.ws>
	<20110916182246.GD11160@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110916182246.GD11160@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Plan for moving forward with QOM
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>

On 09/16/2011 01:22 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> Then we are arguing about minor detail. But according to you this minor
> detail will prevent us from walking device tree up to the root, so it is
> not so minor for me.

There is no root.  It's not a tree.  The composition tree (which we've been 
talking about using for canonical pathnames) has nothing to do with the buses.

Moreover, the composition tree doesn't have a single root.  It's got multiple 
root nodes (any user created device is a root node of a composition tree).

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> --
> 			Gleb.
>