Am 05.06.2013 19:17, schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:04:59PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 05.06.2013 16:39, schrieb Igor Mammedov: >>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:29:08 +0200 >>> Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>>> Why is conversion of dynamic properties to static properties still >>>> needed after I applied a solution to override values of dynamic >>>> properties with -global for 1.5? >>> Do you mean qdev_prop_set_globals_for_type() & co? >> >> Yes. >> >>> If yes, then I recall it was acceptable hack to permit more clean >>> approach for compat props fixes to work. And we promised Anthony to >>> get rid of it when possible. >> >> Indeed, but no one talked about reverting to static properties as the >> solution. :) Instead I was talking about solving this very general >> problem at DeviceState / QOM level. > > We have had this discussion before, and I remember Anthony saying that > anything set using global properties _must_ be static properties, > period.
Obviously I am not aware of that, might that have been an IRC discussion?! > That was the main motivation we even started doing the static properties > work, months ago. Towards Paolo and me, Anthony rejected having static properties for QOM at all! That was back when I temporarily maintained a qom-next tree during some Hard Freeze, I had to unqueue patches to that effect. >> Instead we have a very generic problem: instance_init is called >> recursively, parents first, so a parent class cannot do any instance >> initialization *after* its derived classes initialized the instance. >> That's contrary to how realize and other QOM methods work but in >> exchange for the flexibility put the burden of saving and calling the >> parent's implementation onto subclasses. >> >> That's what I would like to change in some way, possibly a >> instance_post_init hook or the like, similar to how DeviceState got its >> own base class initialization hook to handle static props. >> That would not only keep the work low in this case but may also solve >> the virtio-net initialization problem reported elsewhere. > > You mean this? > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-10/msg00434.html No, wasn't aware of that patchset yet, but yes, something like that I had suggested in the qdev_set_custom_globals() context last Soft Freeze. Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
