Il 07/02/2014 13:44, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
Am 07.02.2014 12:21, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
Let's stop talking about theory and let's look at the actual ccode, please.
I have posted actual patches, you haven't.
I have reviewed those, and said that we can apply all three. It's
certainly better than reverting. That doesn't mean that keeping broken
code would have been better than reverting. And let me repeat that
*reverting a broken patch should always be one of the alternatives*.
But my request to "look at the actual code" was not related to
contribution of patches. It referred to _all_ of QEMU device hierarchy.
Your assertion that "qdev is dead" seems quite an exaggeration; having
contributed quite a few patches to "kill" qdev-specific mechanisms in
favor of generic ones, it seems very much alive to me.
Let's look at qdev. Ask ourselves what useful functionality of Device
has nothing to do with devices. Ask ourselves where it clashes with the
design of Object, and which of the two is better. Make a design that is
consistent with what we need, not with a generic 2-year old vision that
sometimes borders on dogma. Then we can write code.
This is all totally unrelated from which interesting relationships are
useful to extract and visualize from the QOM tree---and my point there
is that both parent-child ("qom-tree") and controller-controlled ("info
qtree") are useful relationships.
Paolo
