qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/28] qom: add the base Object class (v2)


From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/28] qom: add the base Object class (v2)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:43:18 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0

On 01/25/2012 10:37 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/25/2012 03:30 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 24.01.2012 20:32, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
This class provides the main building block for QEMU Object Model and is
extensively documented in the header file. It is largely inspired by
GObject.

Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>
---
v1 -> v2
- remove printf() in type registration
- fix typo in comment (Paolo)
- make Interface private
- move object into a new directory and move header into include/qemu/

Some of us had expressed concerns over introducing include/. Any
particular reason you're doing it still?

Because it's a great idea and I thought everyone loved it?

Can you point me to the concerns raised, I'll go back and look. I didn't
think it was contentious...

To summarize my rationale for it:

1) It avoids all of the non-sense with conflicting system headers
(because we -Iinclude and the headers live in include/qemu)

2) It establishes what are public functions for use in other parts of
qemu vs. private headers (which we currently use based on ad-hoc naming
schemes like block_int.h).

3) I think the kernel serves as an existence proof that this method to
manage headers works really well in practice.

4) Because it's easy enough to complete the transition with a few "git mv", so there's hope not to be stuck with 2 headers in include/ for 5 years.

Paolo




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]