From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58276) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0Vqg-0006rJ-Ck for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 07:33:41 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0VqZ-00024T-3x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 07:33:34 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41530 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W0VqY-00024O-TE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 07:33:27 -0500 Message-ID: <52CBF412.2030806@suse.de> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 13:33:22 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1385718225-26379-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1385718225-26379-2-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <52AE1752.2080605@suse.de> <87k3f5mb9x.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] hw: cannot_instantiate_with_device_add_yet due to pointer props List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , Markus Armbruster , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Marcel Apfelbaum , QEMU Developers , Fabien Chouteau , Blue Swirl , Gerd Hoffmann , Anthony Liguori , "Edgar E. Iglesias" Am 16.12.2013 10:33, schrieb Peter Maydell: > Anyway, I don't actively object to this series. I just think > Anthony's going in the wrong direction which is why I haven't > been particularly eager to actively mark it as reviewed-by me > either... Sorry for not taking the time to reply to these concerns earlier. I thought it was self-speaking that the enterprise Linux distributors among us want a safeguard to avoid customers from crashing a long-running VM with some avoidable device_add. I can't say that I am thrilled about the lengthy name, but this refactoring has raised awareness of what no_user is supposed to be used for and where not. As a reminder, Anthony didn't want the direct patch to simply honor no_user in device_add again, an apparent regression, and this appears to address his request to Markus' and my understanding. We can still rename the field again, split or complement its use, refactor devices and, e.g., CPU/SysBus/timer device infrastructure, etc. all as follow-ups. I might have a bad reputation of being strict in my patch review, but requiring a patch to be the ultimate, final-set-in-stone solution has not been one of them, if it does not affect users. :) Apart from the intended regression fix, the choices discussed affect developers only. Regards, Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC= rnberg