Am 16.12.2013 10:33, schrieb Peter Maydell: > Anyway, I don't actively object to this series. I just think > Anthony's going in the wrong direction which is why I haven't > been particularly eager to actively mark it as reviewed-by me > either...
Sorry for not taking the time to reply to these concerns earlier. I thought it was self-speaking that the enterprise Linux distributors among us want a safeguard to avoid customers from crashing a long-running VM with some avoidable device_add. I can't say that I am thrilled about the lengthy name, but this refactoring has raised awareness of what no_user is supposed to be used for and where not. As a reminder, Anthony didn't want the direct patch to simply honor no_user in device_add again, an apparent regression, and this appears to address his request to Markus' and my understanding. We can still rename the field again, split or complement its use, refactor devices and, e.g., CPU/SysBus/timer device infrastructure, etc. all as follow-ups. I might have a bad reputation of being strict in my patch review, but requiring a patch to be the ultimate, final-set-in-stone solution has not been one of them, if it does not affect users. :) Apart from the intended regression fix, the choices discussed affect developers only. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg