Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
We need to know the original path since unparenting loses this state.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
---
hw/qdev.c| 4 ++--
include/qom/object.h | 3 ++-
qom/object.c | 4 +++-
3 files changed, 7
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 09:24:16AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
We need to know the original path since unparenting loses this state.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
---
hw/qdev.c| 4 ++--
Il 18/03/2013 15:24, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
We need to know the original path since unparenting loses this state.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
---
hw/qdev.c| 4 ++--
include/qom/object.h | 3 ++-
Il 18/03/2013 15:35, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
There's no harm AFAICT in doing this and it seems more logical to me to
have destruction flow start with the subclass and move up to the base
class.
At Paolo's request children are intentionally reported before parents,
shouldn't this
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 18/03/2013 15:24, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
We need to know the original path since unparenting loses this state.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
---
hw/qdev.c| 4 ++--
