Re: [PATCH 50/55] s390x/event-facility: Simplify creation of SCLP event devices

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 26/05/20 11:45, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 16:55:46 +0200
> Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> init_event_facility() creates the SCLP events bus with two SCLP event
>> devices (sclpquiesce and sclp-cpu-hotplug).  It leaves the devices
>> unrealized.  A comment explains they will be realized "via the bus".
>>
>> The bus's realize method sclp_events_bus_realize() indeed realizes all
>> unrealized devices on this bus.  It carries a TODO comment claiming
>> this "has to be done in common code".  No other bus realize method
>> realizes its devices.
>>
>> The common code in question is bus_set_realized(), which has a TODO
>> comment asking for recursive realization.  It's been asking for years.
>>
>> The only devices sclp_events_bus_realize() will ever realize are the
>> two init_event_facility() puts there.
>>
>> Simplify as follows:
>>
>> * Make the devices members of the event facility instance struct, just
>>   like the bus.  object_initialize_child() is simpler than
>>   object_property_add_child() and object_unref().
>>
>> * Realize them in the event facility realize method.
>>
>> This is in line with how such things are done elsewhere.
>>
>> Cc: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden>
>> Cc: Halil Pasic <address@hidden>
>> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <address@hidden>
>> Cc: Richard Henderson <address@hidden>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  hw/s390x/event-facility.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> 
> So, what should happen with this patch? Should it go with the rest of
> the series, or should it go through the s390 tree?

I think an Acked-by is the simplest way to handle it, since qdev_realize
doesn't exist upstream.

Paolo