From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43659)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WujpI-0004Bs-Jm
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:48:38 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WujpC-0006rR-GP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:48:32 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45226)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WujpC-0006rI-81
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:48:26 -0400
Message-ID: <53986C34.3060303@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:48:20 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1402489176-19738-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>	<1402489176-19738-10-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>	<CAEgOgz4pRmKK9NovOedpprg9y+gSFePyd6ya=6oyx0LLZVstpA@mail.gmail.com>	<53986475.8050303@redhat.com>
	<CAEgOgz6Z52h+iEXHT1wGxs_9b9Us_xEwkYyZaedTAAszYbGyRw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEgOgz6Z52h+iEXHT1wGxs_9b9Us_xEwkYyZaedTAAszYbGyRw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 09/13] memory: MemoryRegion: QOMify
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>

Il 11/06/2014 16:32, Peter Crosthwaite ha scritto:
>> > In the end, I believe the conceptual cleanliness of destroy==unparent, and
>> > the removal of 200-odd memory_region_destroy calls, are worth the extra ugly
>> > [0]'s.
>> >
> I think you get to keep the uniqueness though under my latest
> proposal? No tree-wide collision resolution needed. When
> object_property_add_child_array sucessfully sets something to [0] (i
> == 0 iteration), just create an alias without [] at the same time. The
> naming system will behave identically to this patch as-is in all the
> collision cases (i >= 1).

Yes, but then you get duplicates, and some of them are wrong (the ones 
without [0] if there is also a [1]).

I think the solution could be to special case names ending with "[*]" 
(perhaps straight in object_property_add_child!), and then audit 
manually at all the 400+ init calls.

For now I'd rather keep it simple.

Paolo