From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA80C07E9B for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE90F61181 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:52:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CE90F61181 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:50272 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m68uI-0001Rh-2i for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 05:52:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45770) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m68tW-0000lg-4S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 05:52:02 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:48755) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m68tU-0001Bw-Fi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 05:52:01 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1626861119; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=v0IncUWFHptDVmUhFopWsR9kzSasfvN429bjosML7Fg=; b=eJWDIPcqe14cXrMZtqJWyzzNPwI/yGWlh7ctB7uthMNjThHmglPY7hpoAmBy+HCFYfZHDn qm9E+QED/hpDNGNg4P0vOeGnfcEauz4Z9ztfiF033jPMppoF2VrHOegAx2dMJxaAUKOotm sm7N9W1Mtxpxi8VvhSIuYTrl393S7s0= Received: from mail-ej1-f69.google.com (mail-ej1-f69.google.com [209.85.218.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-455-_wQWrCrtOeef3GFsErpjFw-1; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 05:51:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: _wQWrCrtOeef3GFsErpjFw-1 Received: by mail-ej1-f69.google.com with SMTP id y3-20020a17090614c3b0290551ea218ea2so591973ejc.5 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 02:51:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=v0IncUWFHptDVmUhFopWsR9kzSasfvN429bjosML7Fg=; b=GKLVxT+lSdZ/PGieTTLESD14q99RrRtjYFhfA8WNn+1tnpvGfvaA4scCcVP60T7DTe S2TUoXJfJelOz80mvjlryv/T63DkiaXtG8B3Vd0ZMr4TzuqdSvShYZq12R5i82N0C5yu UlZjMAkanKsR695pf273DcMv+NX7dx1rkkqB+Jg3Gv0EgJoFTikoWSd23K5B24by9Drq B7xqu8qjHtUGHvWgmRsK+MTsU4P3CabQKCZLymB0jf9cpVy16rcNdoPOFrjVKuQe3+2i oeocwlcR3krR2U3bXNKRNU3aagh81dUfznJ0B5LQc1e4RvyfU4qsWQ1KMIzFAVm3sNiq Vviw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319eJbggO6jXt8GC0QknrfgBw5BumSBcWfUIevunjzgH6r5EEmn fxLymP6oNI4sNh28jxqpCg8mpNxjkZaGOp8wyzalh0eFMB/5eCfenMHpy7gRlLTB9J7rPvji7ki ZNjan7yLaiqDOrmM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:35c8:: with SMTP id z8mr14749855edc.5.1626861117481; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 02:51:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyAU8DiPB7KBu6VDsGIFBUQj04Zl2RnacY7XQHTQkUrl33WJ2A9ZbBOtgvo4rh6LIoiBj16YQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:35c8:: with SMTP id z8mr14749831edc.5.1626861117249; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 02:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:b07:6468:f312:5e2c:eb9a:a8b6:fd3e? ([2001:b07:6468:f312:5e2c:eb9a:a8b6:fd3e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id cq22sm10562316edb.77.2021.07.21.02.51.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Jul 2021 02:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] qom: use correct field name when getting/setting alias properties To: Eric Blake References: <20210719104033.185109-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20210719104033.185109-3-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20210720010005.vegqnbb5qhfxh7ow@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:51:55 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210720010005.vegqnbb5qhfxh7ow@redhat.com> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=pbonzini@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.474, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, imammedo@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 20/07/21 03:00, Eric Blake wrote: > Deceptively simple; all the work was in the previous patch writing up > the forwarding visitor. I still wonder if Kevin's QAPI aliases will > do this more gracefully, but if we're trying to justify this as a bug > fix worthy of 6.1, this is certainly a smaller approach than Kevin's. > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake As discussed on IRC, this is unrelated to QAPI aliases; QOM alias properties typically target a property *on a different object*. This is a regression, so it certainly has to be fixed in 6.1 one way or the other. Paolo