On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:11:53PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> 
> 
> On 14/09/2015 13:45, David Gibson wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> === * There is no way for a child to determine what its parent
> >>> is.  It is not * a bidirectional relationship.  This is by
> >>> design. ===
> >>> 
> >>> This part always confused me as there is "Object *parent" in
> >>> the "struct Object". So there is way to determine but it must
> >>> not be used? Is it debug only?
> >>> 
> >>> Anyway, all members of the Object class are under /*< private
> >>> >*/ so they should not be accesses in sPAPR code, I believe.
> > Ah, good point, I missed that.  I guess we have to keep the owner 
> > field, redundant though it seems.  Blech.
> 
> I think the comment is wrong or at least inaccurate; it only applies
> to the external QOM interface.  The patch is a good idea, even though
> OBJECT(x)->y traditionally is not used (instead you assign OBJECT(x) to
> a different Object* variable).

Ok.. so are you prepared to give a Reviewed-by, or do I need to ask
someone else (Andreas?) to approve this as QOMishly correct?

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson