Am 05.04.2012 14:36, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Il 05/04/2012 14:04, Andreas Färber ha scritto: >> Am 03.04.2012 15:03, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: >>> Il 03/04/2012 14:11, Andreas Färber ha scritto: >>>> Since this patch is clearly an extended version of my realize patch >>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/148752/, it should carry my SoB, as >>>> reminded last night. If you don't want my SoB on the parts I didn't do - >>>> namely unrealize and *_childen - then feel free to split the patch in >>>> two. Simply dropping attribution in both cover letter and commit just >>>> because I didn't get around yet to sending a v2 with those requests >>>> addressed is not nice! >>> >>> Technically it's not, because I redid it from scratch (I never even had >>> time to really look at your patches beyond reading the commit message, >>> and I did this part while I didn't even have network access). >> >> That's just as lame an accuse > > (Did you mean excuse?)
Yes. > It's a fact, not an excuse. Do I need to show > the two patches side-by-side? That would be even more ridiculous. Here's how I see it: * You add a realize callback to ObjectClass like I did, you add the Error** parameter that was requested as feedback to mine. * You add a static object_realize() method that clashes with my introducing it as a public wrapper function. * You introduce a function object_get_realized() like I did, only you defer your implementation to object_is_realized() which I didn't have and used a new bool realized instead of a state enum (since I left qdev unmodified). * You introduce a function object_set_realized() like I did, only you change the logic to also do unrealize. * You introduce additional stuff that I don't particularly care about. So my point is, whether you've read some patch or not, I just can't understand why you couldn't wait a week for me to resend the updated version and rush it so much that you ignore existing patches that were actually coordinated with Anthony (https://github.com/afaerber/qemu-cpu/commit/bc78ab1c0e4ba375bc5942447644323281184a31 on qom-cpu-sh4 branch already incorporates pm215's wish of a dedicated QERR, f.ex.). While having unrealize and propagation is certainly nice, the most serious issue with yours I see is that it doesn't offer me a way to actually make use of it outside qdev, so that *I* am left with no benefit from your patch! Some practical thoughts on how to align both approaches would be helpful here. For starters, should I name my function object_realize_nofail() instead? And could you prefer _one over _1 in your patch please? If your problem is Signed-off-by specifically, feel free to invent some inofficial tag such as Inspired-by or Derived-from-commit-message-by or resort to a textual reference. Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
