On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:54:35AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 29/07/20 00:47, Eduardo Habkost wrote: [...] > > Do we really need need QOM children to be accessible using the QOM > > property API? > > > > Using the same code for both user-configurable properties and for > > the list of children of a QOM object might have saved some time > > years ago, but I'm not sure this is still a necessary or useful > > abstraction. > > The main thing we get from it is that the QOM paths treat children and > links the same, and links are properties. To be honest it's not a > feature that is very much developed, so perhaps we can remove it but we > need to evaluate the impact of losing it.
Are link properties usable by -device/device_add/-object/object-add? -- Eduardo
