Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 02/10] qom: Introduce ObjectPropertyIterator struct for iteration

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> writes:

> Am 19.11.2015 um 10:20 schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>> Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> writes:
>> 
>>> From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Some users of QOM need to be able to iterate over properties
>>> defined against an object instance. Currently they are just
>>> directly using the QTAIL macros against the object properties
>>> data structure.
>>>
>>> This is bad because it exposes them to changes in the data
>>> structure used to store properties, as well as changes in
>>> functionality such as ability to register properties against
>>> the class.
>>>
>>> This provides an ObjectPropertyIterator struct which will
>>> insulate the callers from the particular data structure
>>> used to store properties. It can be used thus
>>>
>>>   ObjectProperty *prop;
>>>   ObjectPropertyIterator *iter;
>>>
>>>   iter = object_property_iter_init(obj);
>>>   while ((prop = object_property_iter_next(iter))) {
>>>       ... do something with prop ...
>>>   }
>>>   object_property_iter_free(iter);
>> 
>> I see my review hasn't been addressed,
>
> Well, it has, I double-checked that the missing "Iterator" above was
> already on my branch, therefore my IRC comment pointing you to qom-next.
>
>> probably because it came late.
>
> Other than that you only seemed to discuss design alternatives, for
> which neither you nor Daniel provided any actual patch I could've
> applied. While I regularly do style fixups myself, and with the series
> missing -rc0 also functional fixes, posting a diff for review/record, I
> do not see redesigning a 6-patch series as something I can silently do
> last-minute without full respin, for which -rc1 did not leave time.

I certainly didn't expect you to address my review yourself.  You
could've replied with a short note asking Dan to address the remainder
of my review in a follow-up patch.  But no harm done, because I'm not
shy following up about remainders of my reviews myself.

> There was a v3 with iterators, and Pavel pinged v4 twice, I did once
> too, and the last delay after getting the series to work was only due to
> me inserting Daniel's test case (legit hardfreeze material), so ...
>
>> Would you accept a follow-up patch to bring the iterator into line with
>> existing ones?
>
> ... yes, from my perspective any such cleanups can be done post-2.5.

By now should be done, even.

> Please note that both patch 6/7 (included) and 7/7 (not in this pull)
> enhance the iterator, so follow-up patches should be based on qom-next
> please.
>
> Thanks,
> Andreas