From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45742)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1SdkOA-0008RD-R1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:49:15 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1SdkO9-000427-7n
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:49:14 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com ([209.85.212.181]:44576)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1SdkO8-00041y-Uc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:49:13 -0400
Received: by wibhn14 with SMTP id hn14so1729230wib.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4FD4C1F3.2010203@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 17:49:07 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1339097465-22977-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<1339097465-22977-2-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<4FD1530D.4010706@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4FD1530D.4010706@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qom-next 1/7] qdev: Push state up to Object
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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Il 08/06/2012 03:19, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>>
>> +typedef enum ObjectState {
>> +    OBJECT_STATE_INITIALIZED = 1,
>> +    OBJECT_STATE_REALIZED,
>> +} ObjectState;
> 
> I think using a bool would be better since it reduces the temptation to
> add additional states.

In fact someone already discussed having a third state for block
devices... :)

Paolo