> > On 5/7/19 6:34 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > This series looks at Eduardo suggestions from [1] > > > and Thomas commit aff39be0ed97 to replace various > > > object_initialize + qdev_set_parent_bus calls by > > > sysbus_init_child_obj(). > > > > Do you think you can take this series? > > Else, via which tree it should go? > > I was expecting the maintainers of each architecture to apply the > patches for their areas. But I'd be glad to merge it through my > tree if it makes it easier for everybody. > > Are the arm, microblaze, mips, and ppc maintainers OK with that?
Hello, Eduardo. I am OK with two patches applicable to MIPS. Moreover, I am going to apply them to my pull request scheduled to be sent today. Sorry if that makes your part more difficult (you will have to skip two patches from this series). The reason for my urgency is that we in Wave start regression testing for QEMU 4.1 in MIPS environments, and we wanted these two patches integrated sooner rather than later. Thanks to everyone involved! Aleksandar ________________________________________ From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 7:56:21 PM To: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé Cc: Markus Armbruster; Thomas Huth; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Peter Maydell; Philippe Mathieu-Daudé; qemu-...@nongnu.org; Aleksandar Markovic; Andrew Jeffery; Peter Chubb; Alistair Francis; Cédric Le Goater; Aurelien Jarno; David Gibson; Paul Burton; Antony Pavlov; Andrew Baumann; Joel Stanley; Michael S. Tsirkin; Mark Cave-Ayland; qemu-...@nongnu.org; Edgar E. Iglesias; Aleksandar Rikalo; Jean-Christophe Dubois Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] hw: Use object_initialize_child for correct reference counting On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:32:18PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > Hi Eduardo, > > On 5/7/19 6:34 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This series looks at Eduardo suggestions from [1] > > and Thomas commit aff39be0ed97 to replace various > > object_initialize + qdev_set_parent_bus calls by > > sysbus_init_child_obj(). > > Do you think you can take this series? > Else, via which tree it should go? I was expecting the maintainers of each architecture to apply the patches for their areas. But I'd be glad to merge it through my tree if it makes it easier for everybody. Are the arm, microblaze, mips, and ppc maintainers OK with that? > > Thanks! > > Phil. > > > > > Important comment from Eduardo: > > > > It's possible, but we need a volunteer to review each > > hunk because the existing code might be (correctly) > > calling object_unref() (either immediately or when > > parent is finalized). > > > > I tried to split it enough to make the review process > > easier. > > > > Regards, > > > > Phil. > > > > [*] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/943333/#1953608 > > v1: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-02/msg05931.html > > > > Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (16): > > hw/ppc/pnv: Use object_initialize_child for correct reference counting > > hw/misc/macio: Use object_initialize_child for correct ref. counting > > hw/virtio: Use object_initialize_child for correct reference counting > > hw/arm/bcm2835: Use TYPE_PL011 instead of hardcoded string > > hw/arm/bcm2835: Use object_initialize() on PL011State > > hw/arm/bcm2835: Use object_initialize_child for correct ref. counting > > hw/arm/aspeed: Use object_initialize_child for correct ref. counting > > hw/arm: Use object_initialize_child for correct reference counting > > hw/mips: Use object_initialize() on MIPSCPSState > > hw/mips: Use object_initialize_child for correct reference counting > > hw/microblaze/zynqmp: Move the IPI state into the PMUSoC state > > hw/microblaze/zynqmp: Let the SoC manage the IPI devices > > hw/microblaze/zynqmp: Use object_initialize_child for correct ref. > > counting > > hw/microblaze/zynqmp: Use object_initialize_child for correct ref. > > counting > > hw/arm/mps2: Use object_initialize_child for correct reference > > counting > > hw/intc/nvic: Use object_initialize_child for correct reference > > counting -- Eduardo