On 10.04.2012, at 16:09, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 10.04.2012 08:41, schrieb David Gibson: >> On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 06:17:07PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> This series follows up on my PowerPC QOM'ification patches from the >>> qom-cpu-others.v1 RFC series and splits it into steps easier to review. >>> The finalizer is actually filled with life now. Subclasses are postponed. >>> >>> David and Scott, please review and test. >> >> Is there documentation about the object model somewhere? I don't yet >> know enough about it to easily review these. > > No conclusive one that I'm aware of... There's the feature description: > http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/QOM > > You can look at your converted qdev devices and at previously committed > CPU conversions as reference: > > target-sparc, first one using multiple type names: > http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=ab7ab3d74c357e73a37b241fba27ea7f0595c085 > > target-s390x: > http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=29e4bcb26b80f975920508c83a9f24f29eb6bc1a > http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=1ac1a7499bcb44174735780e0bd0421a1ac7a323 > http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=8f22e0df803697c11e8b10c90cc2e67df6e42884 > > target-unicore32: > http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=ae0f5e9ea80de923ae1c11289cf6ac468f657880 > > target-arm: > http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=dec9c2d4306d7b4f8ffff482ac42dc468ed2a61d > > Basically if you verify that I'm not doing something terribly stupid > like introducing NULL dereferences, removing valid parts of unrelated > code, etc. and if you check that your KVM test cases don't assert/crash > at startup, I'm confident we're fine in light of the "mass conversion". > Maybe consider a Tested-by sufficient for this guest-invisible change?
Yeah, tested-by should be ok here. What's the status on this one? Alex