Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> writes: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:05:46AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 11/07/2018 22:23, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:16:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> On 11/07/2018 20:30, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >> >>>> The theoretical behavior should be: >> >>> It's not clear below where you expect >> >>> qdev_set_parent_bus(..., sysbus_get_default()) >> >>> to be called (if it should be called at all). >> >>> >> >>> I don't know where it should be called, but I'm absolutely sure >> >>> instance_init is not the right place. >> >> >> >> I think instance_init is fine to call qdev_set_parent_bus on contained >> >> devices. Why do you say it's not? >> > >> > Because object_unref(object_new(...)) is not supposed to affect >> > QEMU global state at all. >> >> It should not affect it. Any changes to the global state done by >> instance_init are immediately undone when object_unref destroys the >> child properties of the object. > > I would prefer if it didn't, but not a big deal as long as all > QOM code is protected by the BQL (it is, right?). > > If we get rid of object_new() in qmp_device_list_properties(), > then most of the restrictions on instance_init can go away, > anyway.
How could we get rid of object_new()? As long as we create properties in code, we need to run the code to find the properties.
