Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/4] qdev: remove all remaining cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet

[David Gibson]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 05:59:27PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Peter Maydell <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > On 14 April 2017 at 09:37, Laurent Vivier <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> This series removes all the remaining uses of
> >> cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet to finally remove
> >> the flag itself.
> >>
> >> The ARM patch has already been sent alone and reviewed by Markus.
> >> I have tested the ppc one on ppc64 machine with KVM and using
> >> QDM device-list-properties command.
> >>
> >> For the versatile one, the flag allowed to workaround a problem
> >> in the bus unparent function: the bus unparent is trying to
> >> unparent all the children of the bus. To do that, it has a list
> >> of the children of the bus, and calls object_unparent() for each
> >> child, and object_unparent() calls object_property_del_child() if
> >> obj->parent is not NULL.  As qdev_set_parent_bus() set only
> >> parent_bus and the list of children, parent is NULL and the child
> >> is never deleted.  We can avoid the problem by moving the
> >> qdev_set_parent_bus() to the realize part.
> >>
> >> I've tested all the changes with "make check" (including
> >> device-introspect-test). I've booted a versatilepb machine
> >> with a 3.16.0-4 debian installer kernel.
> >>
> >> Laurent Vivier (4):
> >>   arm: remove remaining cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet
> >>   ppc: remove cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet
> >>   versatile: remove cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet
> >>   qdev: remove cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet
> >
> > Markus -- are you planning to take this whole series through
> > your tree? I'm happy with the ARM patches but I guess we
> > should keep the whole series together since patch 4 depends
> > on the other 3...
> 
> We have no qdev maintainer.  David, you wrote you applied PATCH 2.  Are
> you okay with me taking all four?  If yes, would you like me to add your
> Acked-by or Reviewed-by to PATCH 2?

That's fine by me.  I've sent an Acked-by for that patch.

> 
> > I guess that means
> > Acked-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
> 
> Noted.
> 

-- 
David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
                                | _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature