From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38040) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKSRA-0004fw-VL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 07:57:46 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKSR4-0003jq-Id for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 07:57:40 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12410) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKSR4-0003jR-AW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 07:57:34 -0500 Message-ID: <53147C2C.7090404@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:57:16 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1393765632-2753-1-git-send-email-marcel.a@redhat.com> <1393765632-2753-3-git-send-email-marcel.a@redhat.com> <20140303125825.GC6319@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20140303125825.GC6319@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC V2 2/9] vl: use qemu machine QOM class instead of global machines list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcel Apfelbaum Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, quintela@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ehabkost@redhat.com, agraf@suse.de, peter.crosthwaite@petalogix.com, blauwirbel@gmail.com, aliguori@amazon.com, imammedo@redhat.com, scottwood@freescale.com, edgar.iglesias@gmail.com, lcapitulino@redhat.com, afaerber@suse.de, rth@twiddle.net Il 03/03/2014 13:58, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 03:07:05PM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: >> > The machine registration flow is refactored to use the QOM functionality. >> > Instead of linking the machines into a list, each machine has a type >> > and the types can be traversed in the QOM way. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Marcel Apfelbaum > Nice. > > Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > > This patch already looks like a nice cleanup. How about queueing > this and the preceding patch straight away? > Which tree is appropriate? I'm guessing QOM? > Fine by me. Paolo