Message ID | 20200608160044.15531-1-philmd@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | hw/qdev: Warn when using pre-qdev/QOM devices | expand |
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 17:00, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote: > > Based on today's IRC chat, this is a trivial RFC series > to anotate pre-qdev/QOM devices so developers using them > without knowing they are not QOM'ified yet can realize > it and convert them if they have time. What mechanism did you use for identifying non-QOM devices? thanks -- PMM
On 6/8/20 6:14 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 17:00, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Based on today's IRC chat, this is a trivial RFC series >> to anotate pre-qdev/QOM devices so developers using them >> without knowing they are not QOM'ified yet can realize >> it and convert them if they have time. > > What mechanism did you use for identifying non-QOM devices? I don't think this is the complete list, this is only all the one I could find with: $ git grep "g_new|g_malloc" hw/ Then on each match I manually reviewed (so I might have incorrectly flagged code too).
On 08/06/20 18:17, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 6/8/20 6:14 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 17:00, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Based on today's IRC chat, this is a trivial RFC series >>> to anotate pre-qdev/QOM devices so developers using them >>> without knowing they are not QOM'ified yet can realize >>> it and convert them if they have time. >> >> What mechanism did you use for identifying non-QOM devices? > > I don't think this is the complete list, this is only all the one I > could find with: > > $ git grep "g_new|g_malloc" hw/ > > Then on each match I manually reviewed (so I might have incorrectly > flagged code too). Yes, you did, but I guess for an RFC it was a good bang for the buck. I went through the patch and noticed both a few false positives and a couple blatant violations in recent code. Paolo