Il 13/03/2012 13:53, Andreas Färber ha scritto: >> > Methods should not take a superclass >> > argument in general. > So to clarify, this is pro CPUState?
Yes. >>> >> This series is taking much too long to move forward (the QOM "steam" >>> >> seems to be gone?) and I'm worried that introducing much more basic >>> >> infrastructure will make review and applying even slower, cf. >>> >> object_class_foreach_ordered()/_get_list(). >> > >> > Agreed, this series looks more or less good (and mostly mechanical >> > anyway). > Thanks. > >> > Is it an RFC or what? :) I wonder if reviewers are put off by >> > the subject. > The implied RFC is, are we okay with reusing "CPUState" this way? Or > does someone - last call! - have a better identifier name? > > Getting this series merged either means coordinating the PULL with a > maintainer so that no merge conflicts arise in-flight, or having the > maintainer re-run the commit-creating script himself. FWIW I like it. :) Paolo
