Hi, I'm about to board a plane but I at least want to comment that we should all give each other the benefit of the doubt in a situation like this. Everyone on this thread is a long term contributer to QEMU that has more than earned the right not to be accussed of impropriety. Let's all take a deep breathe and tone down this discussion in this thread by assuming that noone is intentionally doing anything wrong On Apr 5, 2012 9:17 AM, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Il 05/04/2012 15:31, Andreas Färber ha scritto: > > Here's how I see it: > > > > * You add a realize callback to ObjectClass like I did, you add the > > Error** parameter that was requested as feedback to mine. > > * You add a static object_realize() method that clashes with my > > introducing it as a public wrapper function. > > * You introduce a function object_get_realized() like I did, only you > > defer your implementation to object_is_realized() which I didn't have > > and used a new bool realized instead of a state enum (since I left qdev > > unmodified). > > * You introduce a function object_set_realized() like I did, only you > > change the logic to also do unrealize. > > * You introduce additional stuff that I don't particularly care about. > > Since we're nitpicking, I also do correct error propagation. > > > So my point is, whether you've read some patch or not, I just can't > > understand why you couldn't wait a week for me to resend the updated > > version > > Because a week is a long time 10 days before the feature freeze, and > (via object_is_realized and a few other small bits) the whole series > depends on the implementation of realized. > > > While having unrealize and propagation is certainly nice, the most > > serious issue with yours I see is that it doesn't offer me a way to > > actually make use of it outside qdev, so that *I* am left with no > > benefit from your patch! > > Can you explain? I definitely would need to fix this. > > > Some practical thoughts on how to align both approaches would be helpful > > here. For starters, should I name my function object_realize_nofail() > > instead? > > Yes, that would be an idea. I would hope that long-term there would be > only one object_realize call during in initial machine creation (i.e. > except for hot-plug), but it would be fine as a start. > > > And could you prefer _one over _1 in your patch please? > > Yes. > > > If your problem is Signed-off-by specifically, feel free to invent some > > inofficial tag such as Inspired-by or Derived-from-commit-message-by or > > resort to a textual reference. > > I can add the SoB, no problem. > > Paolo >
