From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39536) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8i9h-0007d4-LB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 03:04:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8i9d-00053I-MR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 03:04:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37086) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8i9d-00052R-Gc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 03:04:53 -0400 From: Markus Armbruster References: <20170505201128.12099-1-ehabkost@redhat.com> <20170505201128.12099-2-ehabkost@redhat.com> <87efvw26nr.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20170510211028.GF3482@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 09:04:50 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20170510211028.GF3482@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> (Eduardo Habkost's message of "Wed, 10 May 2017 18:10:28 -0300") Message-ID: <87tw4rlvql.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] visitor: Add 'supported_qtypes' parameter to visit_start_alternate() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michael Roth Eduardo Habkost writes: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 03:16:56PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Eduardo Habkost writes: >>=20 >> > This will allow visitors to make decisions based on the supported qtyp= es >> > of a given alternate type. The new parameter can replace the old >> > 'promote_int' argument, as qobject-input-visitor can simply check if >> > QTYPE_QINT is set in supported_qtypes. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost >>=20 >> Might conflict with Marc-Andr=C3=A9's work, which I haven't reviewed, ye= t. >> Should be easy enough to resolve, though. > > This series is now low-priority for me, as I'm not sure about the > need for "feature=3Dforce" in x86. I won't mind having to rebase > this later. Okay. I rather like PATCH 1, and may pick it into my own (unpublished) rework of the alternate visiting code.