From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:39940)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1RbYVJ-0003qE-Ol
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:11:23 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1RbYV9-0004s0-L3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:11:17 -0500
Received: from mail-iy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.210.173]:51922)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1RbYV9-0004ru-CV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:11:07 -0500
Received: by iagj37 with SMTP id j37so5036284iag.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:11:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4EEB5175.8070507@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:11:01 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1323721784-704-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>	<4EEA3813.80006@us.ibm.com>	<4EEB1277.4070803@redhat.com>	<4EEB1ABB.50204@redhat.com>	<4EEB1F3B.8070302@redhat.com>
	<4EEB3891.2020003@redhat.com>	<4EEB4CD1.7050701@us.ibm.com>
	<4EEB4D38.6050200@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EEB4D38.6050200@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 00/20] qom: dynamic properties and
 composition tree
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: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>

On 12/16/2011 07:52 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 02:51 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> struct ISASerial {
>> Device parent;
>>
>> UART _child uart;
>> ISABus _link *bus;
>> };
>>
>> A child should be able to be part of the parent devices memory with its
>> life cycle bound to the parents life cycle. This is why a child
>> property shouldn't be nullable.
>
> 100% agreed in principle.
>
> But technically, if you do not make them pointers how do you handle children
> that, for some reason (broken reference counting for example) outlive the
> parent? Aborting could be a very good answer. :)

Yes, aborting would be the answer.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Paolo
>