On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 08:56:34 -0400
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 04:22:40PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 23/10/20 17:33, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:30:41 -0400
> > > Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:24:08PM +0200,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 04:22:40PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/10/20 17:33, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:30:41 -0400
> > Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:24:08PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:01:13 -0400
> >>> Eduardo
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:22:40 +0100
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/10/20 17:33, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:30:41 -0400
> > Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:24:08PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:01:13 -0400
> >>> Eduardo
On 23/10/20 17:33, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:30:41 -0400
> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:24:08PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:01:13 -0400
>>> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>>
The existing object_class_property_add_uint*_ptr
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 05:33:14PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:30:41 -0400
> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
[...]
> > I don't love object*_property_add_*_ptr() either. I consider the
> > qdev property API better. But we need a reasonable alternative,
> > because the qdev API can
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:30:41 -0400
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:24:08PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:01:13 -0400
> > Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >
> > > The existing object_class_property_add_uint*_ptr() functions are
> > > not very useful, becaus
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 07:06:58AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
[...]
> > I don't love object*_property_add_*_ptr() either. I consider the
> > qdev property API better. But we need a reasonable alternative,
> > because the qdev API can't be used by non-device objects yet.
>
> Emphasis on *yet
Eduardo Habkost writes:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:24:08PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:01:13 -0400
>> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>
>> > The existing object_class_property_add_uint*_ptr() functions are
>> > not very useful, because they need a pointer to the property
>>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:24:08PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:01:13 -0400
> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> > The existing object_class_property_add_uint*_ptr() functions are
> > not very useful, because they need a pointer to the property
> > value, which can't really be pro
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:01:13 -0400
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> The existing object_class_property_add_uint*_ptr() functions are
> not very useful, because they need a pointer to the property
> value, which can't really be provided before the object is
> created.
>
> Replace the pointer parameter in
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:24:19PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/9/20 11:01 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > The existing object_class_property_add_uint*_ptr() functions are
> > not very useful, because they need a pointer to the property
> > value, which can't really be provided before the object
On 10/9/20 11:01 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> The existing object_class_property_add_uint*_ptr() functions are
> not very useful, because they need a pointer to the property
> value, which can't really be provided before the object is
> created.
>
> Replace the pointer parameter in those functions
The existing object_class_property_add_uint*_ptr() functions are
not very useful, because they need a pointer to the property
value, which can't really be provided before the object is
created.
Replace the pointer parameter in those functions with a
`ptrdiff_t offset` parameter.
Include a uint8 c
13 matches
Mail list logo
