From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37932)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1S7ROQ-0001cg-6g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:04:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1S7ROG-0003wj-FJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:03:57 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54158)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1S7ROG-0003tm-7A
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:03:48 -0400
Message-ID: <4F5F45AE.5000805@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:03:42 +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>
	<4F5F3B7C.8030509@redhat.com> <4F5F435E.3080603@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <4F5F435E.3080603@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 13:53, Andreas F=C3=A4rber ha scritto:
>> >  Methods should not take a superclass
>> > argument in general.
> So to clarify, this is pro CPUState?

Yes.

>>> >> This series is taking much too long to move forward (the QOM "stea=
m"
>>> >> seems to be gone?) and I'm worried that introducing much more basi=
c=20
>>> >> infrastructure will make review and applying even slower, cf.=20
>>> >> object_class_foreach_ordered()/_get_list().
>> >=20
>> > Agreed, this series looks more or less good (and mostly mechanical
>> > anyway).
> Thanks.
>=20
>> >  Is it an RFC or what? :)  I wonder if reviewers are put off by
>> > the subject.
> The implied RFC is, are we okay with reusing "CPUState" this way? Or
> does someone - last call! - have a better identifier name?
>=20
> Getting this series merged either means coordinating the PULL with a
> maintainer so that no merge conflicts arise in-flight, or having the
> maintainer re-run the commit-creating script himself.

FWIW I like it. :)

Paolo