Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v10 29/30] cpu: Convert CpuInfo into flat union

2015-11-11 Thread Markus Armbruster
Eric Blake writes: > On 11/09/2015 08:22 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Eric Blake writes: >> >>> When qapi type CpuInfo was originally created for 0.14, we had >>> no notion of a flat union, and instead just listed a bunch of >>> optional fields with

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v10 29/30] cpu: Convert CpuInfo into flat union

2015-11-11 Thread Markus Armbruster
Eric Blake writes: > On 11/11/2015 03:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Do we need this to make 2.5? >>> >>> It's true that the introspection will change (instead of seeing flat >>> optional members, you now have to chase down variants). But I don't >>> think it is

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v10 29/30] cpu: Convert CpuInfo into flat union

2015-11-11 Thread Eric Blake
On 11/11/2015 03:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> Do we need this to make 2.5? >> >> It's true that the introspection will change (instead of seeing flat >> optional members, you now have to chase down variants). But I don't >> think it is pressing enough to rush into 2.5; the change is >>

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v10 29/30] cpu: Convert CpuInfo into flat union

2015-11-10 Thread Eric Blake
On 11/09/2015 08:22 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Eric Blake writes: > >> When qapi type CpuInfo was originally created for 0.14, we had >> no notion of a flat union, and instead just listed a bunch of >> optional fields with documentation about the mutually-exclusive >>

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v10 29/30] cpu: Convert CpuInfo into flat union

2015-11-09 Thread Markus Armbruster
Eric Blake writes: > When qapi type CpuInfo was originally created for 0.14, we had > no notion of a flat union, and instead just listed a bunch of > optional fields with documentation about the mutually-exclusive > choice of which instruction pointer field(s) would be

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v10 29/30] cpu: Convert CpuInfo into flat union

2015-11-05 Thread Eric Blake
When qapi type CpuInfo was originally created for 0.14, we had no notion of a flat union, and instead just listed a bunch of optional fields with documentation about the mutually-exclusive choice of which instruction pointer field(s) would be provided for a given architecture. But now that we