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 pressing enough to rush i
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
>> bac
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 documentation about the mutually-exclusive
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
>> choice of which instruct
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 provided
> for a given arch
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 have