From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51602) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TgIAM-0001xl-Bf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:49:47 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TgIAI-0006XF-1j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:49:46 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49390 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TgIAH-0006Wx-On for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:49:41 -0500 Message-ID: <50BF7B21.7060906@suse.de> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 17:49:37 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1354626315-31186-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <50BE1D52.2070703@suse.de> <50BE1F3D.1060302@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <50BE1F3D.1060302@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 00/18] acpi: switch to memory api List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori Am 04.12.2012 17:05, schrieb Gerd Hoffmann: > On 12/04/12 16:57, Andreas F=E4rber wrote: >> Am 04.12.2012 14:04, schrieb Gerd Hoffmann: >>> Same patches as posted last week. No review comments, 1.4 tree >>> open, so it should be ready to go in now. >> >> That's not quite true - you ignored my review comment wrt MemoryRegion >> placement (and I left it to you to look for further instances). Can yo= u >> please fix that up on your branch or as follow-up? >=20 > You mean that empty line after parent_object? I can send a followup fo= r > that one. >=20 > Why it is important btw? Just style? Some parser tool? Mainly style: QOM uses the parent's struct as field to block the memory but otherwise attempts to hide this field from users: /*< private >*/ FooState parent_obj; /*< public >*/ Bar baz; ... In the past I found places where this was mangled up and the parent field was not the first field as it needs to be, not caught by the qdev macros. I have hopes that when we preprocess for QIDL we can also improve the vtable situation, possibly inserting the parents' fields individually. Either way my don't-touch-the-parent cleanups will turn useful. ;) > Can we make > checkpatch.pl check this? Maybe? I wouldn't know where or how since it's not within one line... And last time I attempted to change checkpatch.pl, my patches were turned down. :( >> Did you see any overlap with Julien's series or can I post my PULL in >> parallel? >=20 > Given that you kicked out the acpi changes due to q35 merge conflicts i= t > should work in parallel as my series touches acpi only. Havn't actuall= y > tried to merge though. Just found out that the apm patch trivially conflicts (hw/lpc_ich9.c) - you added a notifier whereas Julien changed apm_init() signature. I can update my branch once Anthony has pulled yours. Cheers, Andreas > A small followup is needed once both are in: replace get_system_io() > with the new isa_address_space() in the acpi code. --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FCrnbe= rg