On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:41:58PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 30.05.23 15:11, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 30.05.23 15:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 01:38:36PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > There are no remaining users in the tree, so let's remove it. > > > > > > > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: Richard Henderson <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: Eduardo Habkost <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: Marcel Apfelbaum <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > This (with previous patches) means any user changing > > > device-memory-region-size machine property is now broken, right? > > > > We only had a getter, no setter (for good reason). > > > > > How do we know there are no users? > > > > We don't. A quick google search makes "device-memory-region-size" and > > "qom-get" only pop up in BUG fixes for something that appears to be QEMU > > developer driven. > > > > I don't consider it any useful, but if we want to be careful, sure we > > can leave it around. > > Looking further, libvirt doesn't use it (and never used it). > > I already renamed it in 2018 without anybody complaining: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg532101.html > > So I'm quite confident that nobody will really miss this property. > > -- > Thanks, > > David / dhildenb
OK. In the future we need to be careful and use "x-" prefix for what we don't want to expose. -- MST
