From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40178)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1S7QiS-0007KX-Ai
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:20:43 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1S7QiD-0000xD-GE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:20:35 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3786)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1S7QiD-0000wp-8Q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:20:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4F5F3B7C.8030509@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:20:12 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1330893156-26569-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<1331346496-10736-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<1331346496-10736-45-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<4F5DC41F.10903@redhat.com> <4F5F39DD.5040308@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <4F5F39DD.5040308@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC v4 44/44] qom: Introduce CPU class
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: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>
Cc: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>

Il 13/03/2012 13:13, Andreas F=C3=A4rber ha scritto:
> > It will be easier to generalize later qdev code and not make special
> > case when adding cpus.
>=20
> I never heard anyone wanting to generalize reset so far. I don't think
> it belongs into Object at least. Maybe DeviceState. Anthony? Paolo?

I believe long term we want CPUs to become a DeviceState.  For now, I
think Andreas's prototype is fine.  Methods should not take a superclass
argument in general.

> This series is taking much too long to move forward (the QOM "steam"
> seems to be gone?) and I'm worried that introducing much more basic=20
> infrastructure will make review and applying even slower, cf.=20
> object_class_foreach_ordered()/_get_list().

Agreed, this series looks more or less good (and mostly mechanical
anyway).  Is it an RFC or what? :)  I wonder if reviewers are put off by
the subject.

Paolo