On 03/13/2012 07:20 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 13/03/2012 13:13, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
It will be easier to generalize later qdev code and not make special
case when adding cpus.
I never heard anyone wanting to generalize reset so far. I don't think
it belongs into Object at least. Maybe DeviceState. Anthony? Paolo?
I believe long term we want CPUs to become a DeviceState. For now, I
think Andreas's prototype is fine. Methods should not take a superclass
argument in general.
Agreed 100%. Methods should take whatever there class is as the argument.
This series is taking much too long to move forward (the QOM "steam"
seems to be gone?) and I'm worried that introducing much more basic
infrastructure will make review and applying even slower, cf.
object_class_foreach_ordered()/_get_list().
Agreed, this series looks more or less good (and mostly mechanical
anyway). Is it an RFC or what? :) I wonder if reviewers are put off by
the subject.
44 patches is a bit scary. Had I realized it was so straight forward, I would
have reviewed it faster.
Anyway, I'm really happy with the whole series. If it weren't an RFC, I'd apply
it right now.
Andreas, please send out a new series that's !rfc or a pull request.
Really great work here, btw!
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Paolo
