[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 27/49] ac97: add active to the state

[malc]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Juan Quintela wrote:

> malc <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >
> >> malc <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> >> >> There are more temporary variables in other devices, and this was the
> >> >> >> way it was done there.  Normally I would have called it 
> >> >> >> active_vmstate
> >> >> >> to make that explicit, but here, it was also used for reset, that is 
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> way I named it with the _vmstate suffix.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In any case the while i can understand the fear of malloc, nobody 
> >> >> > forces
> >> >> > you to do that you can have a scratch space on the stack, with an some
> >> >> > upper cap, that's the way it's done now anyhow, only the cap is stack 
> >> >> > size
> >> >> > reserved for the process and not something you have to choose.
> >> >> 
> >> >> You call new way a monstrosity, and now propose a solution that makes
> >> >> the monster bigger?
> >> >> 
> >> >> I still stand behind the patch, and I still want it applied.
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> > And it wont be, not this part of it, not in this state.
> >> 
> >> Suggestions?  Because you are not telling me that you expect to move
> >> something to the stack, reimplement alloca() and work from there was a
> >> _real suggestion_?
> >> 
> >
> > Yet somehow you are explecting me to solve the problems with your design
> > for you, neat. Alloca can be used but is not strictly necessary.
> >
> > char buf[UPPER_CAP]; and maybe temp_fields that point to it and survive
> > the period between pre/post functions, would suffice, but anyhow, it's 
> > your problem to solve, to reiterate i'm quite happy with what is there
> > now.
> 
> No.  Everywhere code changed as I changed in ac97.  And everybody
> agrees.  And now you told that everybody else was wrong, and that the
> only true way is changing everything else for a worse/uglier solution.
> As I told before, you have commit access, you win.
> 
> Discussion is at the point:
> - you will accept _any_ solution that means not changing ac97.  No
>   compromises taken.

I dont get this part, if you meant - am i against the patch modulo ac97
changes, then no i'm not, it's the respective maintainers opinion what
matters.

> - I will not make VMState worse/uglier/more complex just to work-around
>   your veto.
> 
> Patch don't goes in, you win and I have lost time porting ac97 to VMState.

Yep.

-- 
mailto:address@hidden