From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51758) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7WH7-0003XS-Bp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:16:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7WGi-0001jd-Oq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:16:44 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:53342) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S7WGi-0001jJ-Kh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:16:20 -0400 Received: by yenr5 with SMTP id r5so981181yen.4 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F5F8EEE.9020105@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:16:14 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori 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> In-Reply-To: <4F5F3B7C.8030509@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC v4 44/44] qom: Introduce CPU class List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Igor Mammedov , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 03/13/2012 07:20 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 13/03/2012 13:13, Andreas Färber ha scritto: >>> It will be easier to generalize later qdev code and not make special >>> case when adding cpus. >> >> 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. Agreed 100%. Methods should take whatever there class is as the argument. > >> 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 >> infrastructure will make review and applying even slower, cf. >> 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. 44 patches is a bit scary. Had I realized it was so straight forward, I would have reviewed it faster. Anyway, I'm really happy with the whole series. If it weren't an RFC, I'd apply it right now. Andreas, please send out a new series that's !rfc or a pull request. Really great work here, btw! Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Paolo >