From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44651) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VLavZ-0006Za-NH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:41:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VLavT-0006qL-KL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:41:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10334) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VLavT-0006qG-Co for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:41:23 -0400 Message-ID: <523726AA.5020107@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:41:30 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20130915172331.GA2821@redhat.com> <5236A5ED.3000804@suse.de> <20130916123303.GA2992@redhat.com> <523722BE.90202@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <523722BE.90202@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qom: helper macro for adding read-only properties List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= Cc: Igor Mammedov , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Il 16/09/2013 17:24, Andreas F=E4rber ha scritto: >> >=20 >> > Shouldn't we have a constant for the "realized" string? > That's a two-sided sword: We actually shouldn't be setting realized =3D > true manually but once on machine init - in that case we wouldn't > strictly need a constant. >=20 > I pushed to get that central infrastructure in place to spare me/us the > repetitive realized =3D true setting, but Paolo shot it down, asking fo= r a > full-fledged solver to make ordering guarantees. >=20 Actually, I said my understanding of the problem was that we have two "conflicting" hierarchies. I didn't really ask for a solver, more like a topological sort actually, which is very simple to implement. But above everything else I asked to prove me wrong. I provided IIRC an example where the hierarchies were conflicting, could that example be incorrect? The discussion died down. Could it be a topic for tomorrow's call? I certainly would prefer to have realized =3D true at machine-ready time, I think it was even part of the very first RFC realized series that were posted. Paolo