On 02/24/2012 10:51 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:15:52 -0600
Anthony Liguori<aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
On 02/24/2012 10:12 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 24 February 2012 14:13, Luiz Capitulino<lcapitul...@redhat.com> wrote:
Perform the following renames:
o qemu_register_machine() -> machine_register()
o find_machine() -> machine_find()
o find_default_machine() -> machine_find_default()
Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino<lcapitul...@redhat.com>
52 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-)
I said I was going to nack the next change-whole-tree
change, so here it is: nack.
At some point we're going to have to actually start
converting boards to be QOM objects themselves, but
(a) I hope we can make that incremental so we can do
things in batches the way we did with MemoryRegion
conversions and (b) until then the qemu_register_machine
rename just looks like unnecessary churn to me.
I think I agree with you here. I don't see the value compared to the churn here
given that we're going to have to touch all of this again anyway soon.
Do you guys see value in patch 5/5, which moves the machine function to the
boards file?
Yes. And it's not that the other practicals aren't useful, it's just that I
agree with Peter's valid point that the churn outweighs the benefit right now.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
If you don't I'll keep only patch 1/5 (which can be submitted to qemu-trivial).
