From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42026) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBl8K-00081Y-6o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 08:06:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBl8B-000640-Mq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 08:06:16 -0500 Received: from mail-qc0-x233.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c01::233]:50436) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBl8B-00063q-JN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 08:06:07 -0500 Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id e16so5721279qcx.38 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:06:07 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <52F4DA3A.7010700@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:06:02 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1391621709-15620-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <52F2795D.10708@redhat.com> <52F27A1D.2040504@suse.de> <52F27B1C.6010307@redhat.com> <52F27C7A.2040701@suse.de> <52F487AE.4060301@redhat.com> <52F4BEEA.5060606@suse.de> <52F4C1B1.302@redhat.com> <52F4D52F.3020004@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <52F4D52F.3020004@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] scripts: Add qom-tree script as modern equivalent of info qtree List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, armbru@redhat.com, aliguori@amazon.com, lcapitulino@redhat.com Il 07/02/2014 13:44, Andreas Färber ha scritto: > Am 07.02.2014 12:21, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: >> Let's stop talking about theory and let's look at the actual ccode, please. > > I have posted actual patches, you haven't. I have reviewed those, and said that we can apply all three. It's certainly better than reverting. That doesn't mean that keeping broken code would have been better than reverting. And let me repeat that *reverting a broken patch should always be one of the alternatives*. But my request to "look at the actual code" was not related to contribution of patches. It referred to _all_ of QEMU device hierarchy. Your assertion that "qdev is dead" seems quite an exaggeration; having contributed quite a few patches to "kill" qdev-specific mechanisms in favor of generic ones, it seems very much alive to me. Let's look at qdev. Ask ourselves what useful functionality of Device has nothing to do with devices. Ask ourselves where it clashes with the design of Object, and which of the two is better. Make a design that is consistent with what we need, not with a generic 2-year old vision that sometimes borders on dogma. Then we can write code. This is all totally unrelated from which interesting relationships are useful to extract and visualize from the QOM tree---and my point there is that both parent-child ("qom-tree") and controller-controlled ("info qtree") are useful relationships. Paolo