From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50480) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TcxQZ-00047j-7k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:04:48 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TcxQV-0006D8-3K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:04:43 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24247) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TcxQU-0006D3-S7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:04:39 -0500 Message-ID: <50B35ACD.4030103@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:04:29 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1353888766-6951-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <1353888766-6951-2-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <50B3185A.3080005@redhat.com> <50B3580B.6040207@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <50B3580B.6040207@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/34] qdev: Eliminate qdev_free() in favor of QOM List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori , Stefano Stabellini Il 26/11/2012 12:52, Andreas F=C3=A4rber ha scritto: > Am 26.11.2012 08:20, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: >> Il 26/11/2012 01:12, Andreas F=C3=A4rber ha scritto: >>> qdev_free() was trivially wrapping object_delete(). Inline it and dro= p >>> the wrapper as a further step to QOM'ify qdev. >> >> The reference counts of devices and buses are completely disconnected >> from reality, and that's why object_delete() works. >> >> I'd prefer this patch not to be applied until this is straightened out= ... >=20 > Your series is marked for-1.3 whereas this is for 1.4, so no obvious > problem there - wanted to mention the overlap in the cover letter but > apparently forgot. I have a more complete series for 1.4 (needs a bit more testing, but I guess I can send out an RFC). The one I posted for 1.3 is a subset. > My quest was to kill obsolete things with old "qdev" in the name. :) > I don't really mind if this becomes object_delete() or object_unref() o= r > anything else as long as it's not such a trivial qdev_* wrapper calling > one QOM object_* function. Ok, that's fine. Paolo