From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39923) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gL4nM-0006yO-0k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 06:17:48 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gL4nG-0006AO-UT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 06:17:47 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20911) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gL4nC-00061I-PM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 06:17:40 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 12:17:31 +0100 From: Gerd Hoffmann Message-ID: <20181109111731.vxdmqmkorblcnntx@sirius.home.kraxel.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] List of files containing devices which have not been QOMified List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers Hi, > I am also suspicious about hw/bt/ but don't know enough > about that subsystem to say if it could benefit from > using QOM objects more. I'm wondering whenever anyone would even notice if we just rm -rf hw/bt Looking through the changelog for the last five years (after hw/ split) the only thing I see is fixing warnings from compiler or coverity, adapting to changes in other systems (chardev for example) and treewide changes. Not a *single* patch specific to bluetooth ... cheers, Gerd