Re: [PATCH v15 00/23] i386 cleanup PART 2

[Alex Bennée]

For patch 17 on onwards it was just seeing what the actual benefit of
the derived class was - I think I get it later on but you should
mention it up front.

I do think we need to address the ordering constraint in 21 - are we
introducing one or just formalising what has been created? If we are
introducing one then can we a) do it a better way with the structuring
of QOM or b) enforce it so new models don't run into unexpected bugs.

On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 17:10, Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> thanks for your review,
>
> On 2/3/21 5:57 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> >
> > Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> writes:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Final comments. I think overall this series is looking pretty good
> > although I got a bit lost at the end when we started expanding on the
> > AccelClass.
> > The main yuck was the start-up ordering constraint which
>
> To be sure, are you referring to tcg_accel_ops_init(), ie your comments 
> towards the end of PATCH 17?
>
> Ciao,
>
> Claudio
>
> > would be nice to remove or failing that catch with some asserts so weird
> > bugs don't get introduced.
> >
> > Paolo, is it worth picking up some of the early patches to reduce the
> > patch delta going forward?
> >
>


-- 
Alex Bennée
KVM/QEMU Hacker for Linaro