From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54102)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1SCZXZ-0004f2-37
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:46:42 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1SCZXU-0004lH-EP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:46:36 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55748)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1SCZXU-0004kd-2w
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:46:32 -0400
Message-ID: <4F71EECE.6000307@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:46:06 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1332769612-4247-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<4F71E8AE.9030504@redhat.com> <4F71EABB.1030004@codemonkey.ws>
	<CAFEAcA-672g0AmQJSy-2Sfd3roKDNtoDx9xMwcZ-TxMgppir5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-672g0AmQJSy-2Sfd3roKDNtoDx9xMwcZ-TxMgppir5w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/3] qom: Generalize qdev init to
	"realize"
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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Wanpeng Li <liwp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>

Il 27/03/2012 18:33, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> > Yes, I haven't reviewed this series yet, but my expectation would be that
>> > realize propagates and that the default implementation of
>> > DeviceClass::realize() would explicitly *not* propagate and instead just
>> > call ::init.
> So who calls realize for non-qdev QOM objects which are children of
> qdev QOM objects?
> 
> I really don't like having the object lifecycle methods be different
> for DeviceClass than for base objects if we can avoid it.

The way I read it was that the "realize" property propagates to the
children and calls either the "realize" or "reset" method (in the
appropriate order).

DeviceClass::realize() would also do other things done currently by
qdev_init, such as register vmstate, so there would still be a
separation between DeviceClass::realize and DeviceClass::init (we do not
want yet another pass through the whole tree).

qdev_init would be a thin wrapper around object_realize that takes care
of freeing the object when init fails.

Is this correct?

Paolo