Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 23/25] qom: add realized property

["Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>]

Am 05.04.2012 14:36, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 05/04/2012 14:04, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
>> Am 03.04.2012 15:03, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>>> Il 03/04/2012 14:11, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
>>>> Since this patch is clearly an extended version of my realize patch
>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/148752/, it should carry my SoB, as
>>>> reminded last night. If you don't want my SoB on the parts I didn't do -
>>>> namely unrealize and *_childen - then feel free to split the patch in
>>>> two. Simply dropping attribution in both cover letter and commit just
>>>> because I didn't get around yet to sending a v2 with those requests
>>>> addressed is not nice!
>>>
>>> Technically it's not, because I redid it from scratch (I never even had
>>> time to really look at your patches beyond reading the commit message,
>>> and I did this part while I didn't even have network access).
>>
>> That's just as lame an accuse
> 
> (Did you mean excuse?)

Yes.

>  It's a fact, not an excuse.  Do I need to show
> the two patches side-by-side?  That would be even more ridiculous.

Here's how I see it:

* You add a realize callback to ObjectClass like I did, you add the
Error** parameter that was requested as feedback to mine.
* You add a static object_realize() method that clashes with my
introducing it as a public wrapper function.
* You introduce a function object_get_realized() like I did, only you
defer your implementation to object_is_realized() which I didn't have
and used a new bool realized instead of a state enum (since I left qdev
unmodified).
* You introduce a function object_set_realized() like I did, only you
change the logic to also do unrealize.
* You introduce additional stuff that I don't particularly care about.

So my point is, whether you've read some patch or not, I just can't
understand why you couldn't wait a week for me to resend the updated
version and rush it so much that you ignore existing patches that were
actually coordinated with Anthony
(https://github.com/afaerber/qemu-cpu/commit/bc78ab1c0e4ba375bc5942447644323281184a31
on qom-cpu-sh4 branch already incorporates pm215's wish of a dedicated
QERR, f.ex.).

While having unrealize and propagation is certainly nice, the most
serious issue with yours I see is that it doesn't offer me a way to
actually make use of it outside qdev, so that *I* am left with no
benefit from your patch!

Some practical thoughts on how to align both approaches would be helpful
here. For starters, should I name my function object_realize_nofail()
instead? And could you prefer _one over _1 in your patch please?

If your problem is Signed-off-by specifically, feel free to invent some
inofficial tag such as Inspired-by or Derived-from-commit-message-by or
resort to a textual reference.

Andreas

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg