On 2012-03-26 22:13, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 03/26/2012 03:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2012-03-26 21:49, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> On 03/26/2012 02:44 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> This would also mean that reference counting should be revisited >>> although with how dereferencing a parent affects the child. >>> >>> It's not rocket science, but it's also something that needs to be done >>> carefully. >> >> But all this is only a problem for these three here (PIT, RTC, HPET) as >> their objects shall be embedded into the super-IO. If you only embed an >> object pointer, it shouldn't be an issue anymore, no? > > The reference counting stuff obviously needs to be looked at even in > this case.
A composite object is owned by its container. So it should go when the container leaves. > >> Also inheritance is not a problem here as we do not derive from the >> three types in question. If there is a super/sub-class relation, those >> need to share an internal header, of course. > > Yes, but then you have two headers for every type. Is that really a > good thing? It's cleaner and more explicit than tagging members with comments. And it's nothing we will have for each and every type as only a small subset is actually inheriting, the mass is finalizing. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
