On Tue, 19 May 2020 16:55:46 +0200 Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> init_event_facility() creates the SCLP events bus with two SCLP event > devices (sclpquiesce and sclp-cpu-hotplug). It leaves the devices > unrealized. A comment explains they will be realized "via the bus". > > The bus's realize method sclp_events_bus_realize() indeed realizes all > unrealized devices on this bus. It carries a TODO comment claiming > this "has to be done in common code". No other bus realize method > realizes its devices. > > The common code in question is bus_set_realized(), which has a TODO > comment asking for recursive realization. It's been asking for years. > > The only devices sclp_events_bus_realize() will ever realize are the > two init_event_facility() puts there. > > Simplify as follows: > > * Make the devices members of the event facility instance struct, just > like the bus. object_initialize_child() is simpler than > object_property_add_child() and object_unref(). > > * Realize them in the event facility realize method. > > This is in line with how such things are done elsewhere. > > Cc: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> > Cc: Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> > Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> > Cc: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> > Cc: qemu-s3...@nongnu.org > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > --- > hw/s390x/event-facility.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++----------------------- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) So, what should happen with this patch? Should it go with the rest of the series, or should it go through the s390 tree?
