From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33804) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SCGYw-0000ti-Es for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:30:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SCGYu-0004Pj-8Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:30:46 -0400 Received: from fmmailgate05.web.de ([217.72.192.243]:61128) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SCGYt-0004PK-UX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:30:44 -0400 Received: from moweb001.kundenserver.de (moweb001.kundenserver.de [172.19.20.114]) by fmmailgate05.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB506BB6521 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:30:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4F70D1F0.20102@web.de> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:30:40 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1332727608-26523-1-git-send-email-liwp@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F705F08.4010002@siemens.com> <4F70A877.3060809@codemonkey.ws> <4F70C3E0.4000708@web.de> <4F70C4F6.8090900@codemonkey.ws> <4F70C55D.4030203@web.de> <4F70C5FA.4060605@codemonkey.ws> <4F70C726.9020504@web.de> <4F70C850.5030602@codemonkey.ws> <4F70CD2A.3040802@web.de> <4F70CDD4.2090903@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4F70CDD4.2090903@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig74A8885D7DF0FF23E1DAC12C" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Wanpeng Li , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Isaku Yamahata , Avi Kivity , Paolo Bonzini , Gavin Shan This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig74A8885D7DF0FF23E1DAC12C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2012-03-26 22:13, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 03/26/2012 03:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2012-03-26 21:49, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> On 03/26/2012 02:44 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> This would also mean that reference counting should be revisited >>> although with how dereferencing a parent affects the child. >>> >>> It's not rocket science, but it's also something that needs to be don= e >>> carefully. >> >> But all this is only a problem for these three here (PIT, RTC, HPET) a= s >> their objects shall be embedded into the super-IO. If you only embed a= n >> object pointer, it shouldn't be an issue anymore, no? >=20 > The reference counting stuff obviously needs to be looked at even in > this case. A composite object is owned by its container. So it should go when the container leaves. >=20 >> Also inheritance is not a problem here as we do not derive from the >> three types in question. If there is a super/sub-class relation, those= >> need to share an internal header, of course. >=20 > Yes, but then you have two headers for every type. Is that really a > good thing? It's cleaner and more explicit than tagging members with comments. And it's nothing we will have for each and every type as only a small subset is actually inheriting, the mass is finalizing. Jan --------------enig74A8885D7DF0FF23E1DAC12C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk9w0fAACgkQitSsb3rl5xQOhACfaitvkKp9SFTI7/r4hmZedx9F YcMAoOX3lZSLH7qYpqvp6Tpqz/1Jobvl =sRED -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig74A8885D7DF0FF23E1DAC12C--