On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 08:43:24AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > 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.
By stopping registering properties at instance_init, and making them introspectable at the class object. -- Eduardo
