v1 was "Replace current_machine by qdev_get_machine()":
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg669611.html

But Markus objected, see:
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg670122.html
and older discussion:
https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg611338.html

This series salvage patches from v1, and add other trivial cleanups.

Can the ARM/PPC/S390 patches could go via their own tree, and the
rest via Paolo's 'misc' tree?

Supersedes: <20200109152133.23649-1-philmd@redhat.com>

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (10):
  hw/ppc/spapr_rtas: Use local MachineState variable
  hw/ppc/spapr_rtas: Access MachineState via SpaprMachineState argument
  hw/ppc/spapr_rtas: Remove local variable
  target/arm/kvm: Use CPUState::kvm_state in kvm_arm_pmu_supported()
  target/s390x: Remove duplicated ifdef macro
  qom/object: Display more helpful message when a parent is missing
  qdev: Abort if the root machine container is missing
  accel: Introduce the current_accel() wrapper
  accel: Replace current_machine->accelerator by current_accel() wrapper
  accel/tcg: Sanitize include path

 include/sysemu/accel.h     | 2 ++
 accel/accel.c              | 5 +++++
 accel/kvm/kvm-all.c        | 4 ++--
 accel/tcg/tcg-all.c        | 8 ++++----
 hw/core/qdev.c             | 1 +
 hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c        | 9 ++++-----
 memory.c                   | 2 +-
 qom/object.c               | 6 +++++-
 target/arm/kvm.c           | 4 +---
 target/arm/kvm64.c         | 5 ++---
 target/i386/kvm.c          | 2 +-
 target/ppc/kvm.c           | 2 +-
 target/s390x/excp_helper.c | 7 +++----
 vl.c                       | 2 +-
 14 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

-- 
2.21.1

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> writes:

> v1 was "Replace current_machine by qdev_get_machine()":
> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg669611.html
>
> But Markus objected, see:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg670122.html
> and older discussion:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg611338.html
>
> This series salvage patches from v1, and add other trivial cleanups.
>
> Can the ARM/PPC/S390 patches could go via their own tree, and the
> rest via Paolo's 'misc' tree?
>
> Supersedes: <20200109152133.23649-1-philmd@redhat.com>

Separating off uncontroversial patches is always a good idea.  These all
look okay to me on first glance, with one minor remark on PATCH 7.  I
think you got or are likely to get competent review for all of them.  If
you need me to have a closer look, just ask.

Thanks!

On 1/21/20 1:47 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> v1 was "Replace current_machine by qdev_get_machine()":
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg669611.html
>>
>> But Markus objected, see:
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg670122.html
>> and older discussion:
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg611338.html
>>
>> This series salvage patches from v1, and add other trivial cleanups.
>>
>> Can the ARM/PPC/S390 patches could go via their own tree, and the
>> rest via Paolo's 'misc' tree?
>>
>> Supersedes: <20200109152133.23649-1-philmd@redhat.com>
> 
> Separating off uncontroversial patches is always a good idea.  These all
> look okay to me on first glance, with one minor remark on PATCH 7.  I
> think you got or are likely to get competent review for all of them.  If
> you need me to have a closer look, just ask.

Good :) Thanks!

On 21/01/20 12:03, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> v1 was "Replace current_machine by qdev_get_machine()":
> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg669611.html
> 
> But Markus objected, see:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg670122.html
> and older discussion:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg611338.html
> 
> This series salvage patches from v1, and add other trivial cleanups.
> 
> Can the ARM/PPC/S390 patches could go via their own tree, and the
> rest via Paolo's 'misc' tree?

I think they're trivial enough so (with the exception of patch 7) I have
queued them.

Paolo

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:27:09 +0100
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 21/01/20 12:03, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > v1 was "Replace current_machine by qdev_get_machine()":
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg669611.html
> > 
> > But Markus objected, see:
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg670122.html
> > and older discussion:
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg611338.html
> > 
> > This series salvage patches from v1, and add other trivial cleanups.
> > 
> > Can the ARM/PPC/S390 patches could go via their own tree, and the
> > rest via Paolo's 'misc' tree?  
> 
> I think they're trivial enough so (with the exception of patch 7) I have
> queued them.

I had already queued the s390 patch; let's just see who gets their pull
req out first, I can also unqueue it again.