|
From: | Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 3/6] vl: allow customizing the class of /machine |
Date: | Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:35:51 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 |
Il 28/02/2014 16:57, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
Am 28.02.2014 16:08, schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy:On 03/01/2014 02:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:Il 28/02/2014 16:03, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto:On 02/28/2014 02:04 AM, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 15:59 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:Il 27/02/2014 15:39, Marcel Apfelbaum ha scritto:Each of them highlights one of the two aspects that, in my opinion, make QOM interesting (respectively, unification of interfaces and the containment tree).I was planning to tackle the replacement of the machine from a container to an actual object too, however this patch conflicts with my series because I already have a QOM Machine object created *always* and this patch adds another object *sometimes*. Is this patch's functionality in use yet? Any idea how to merge those ideas?pseries simply wants to make /machine implement the FWPathProvider interface. As long as you have a way for boards to specify a TypeInfo for /machine, this patch will not get in the way.Thanks Paolo! I'll be aware not to brake this functionality. MarcelWhat is the outcome of this discussion for the patches I posted? Do I have to wait till you finish that machine properties rework and repost or...?Your patches are fine.I disputed that in this case and asked for a code change in qdev code either not creating the container and/or asserting that that code path is not hit.
You're right. The outcome of the discussion was not that the patches are fine, but rather that they need not be blocked by Marcel's work. I was too terse/vague/wrong---sorry.
Who gets in first, wins. The other, rebases. :)Negative, qemu.git is not a tombola. If there's known issues they need to be fixed before merging. But yes, when there's two "good" approaches then it's a matter of merge order, which ideally should involve communication rather than competition among maintainers. Because the pull that does not apply then gets bounced by Peter.
Right, hence the smiley. People that submit patches should be aware of conflicting series and tell the maintainers about it.
Paolo
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |