On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:13:07 +0100 Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > For consistency in git-log, please use "qom:" rather than "object:". > > Am 23.03.2015 um 13:06 schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > > On 23/03/2015 11:36, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: > >> I don't think TypeInfo is the right place for this. You can however > >> define function hooks for Object in ObjectClass. See the unparent > >> field of ObjectClass for a precedent. > > Agree. > > > In this case, the right place could be UserCreatable. > > Maybe, not so familiar with that interface myself. Does object_del allow > to delete non-UserCreatable objects? Then it wouldn't help much. object_del() works only with /objects children, and so far the only way that child placed there is via object_add() which requires a new object to have TYPE_USER_CREATABLE interface. I'd go this way rather than overhaul object_unparent() in this case. > > > Alternatively... > > > >> But is a better way to do this to add error handling to > >> object_unparent API and override object_unparent for your device in > >> question to throw the error? Then your change doesn't have to be > >> limited to QMP. > > > > ... this is also a good choice. > > Well, I have doubts about asking someone who's not ultimately familiar > with that code to refactor the API. For instance, we wouldn't want QEMU > on shutdown or in error cases refusing to unparent some object. > > Doing it at QMP level (ObjectClass/UserCreatable) seems safer, given > that Chun Yan's trivial block option fix ended up respinning a QemuOpts > refactoring some twenty times before it got merged. > > Regards, > Andreas >
