On 2/25/25 09:26, Zhao Liu wrote:
+/// An opaque wrapper around [`bindings::IRQState`]. +#[repr(transparent)] +#[derive(Debug, qemu_api_macros::Wrapper)] +pub struct IRQState(Opaque<bindings::IRQState>); + /// Interrupt sources are used by devices to pass changes to a value (typically /// a boolean). The interrupt sink is usually an interrupt controller or /// GPIO controller. @@ -22,8 +28,7 @@ /// method sends a `true` value to the sink. If the guest has to see a /// different polarity, that change is performed by the board between the /// device and the interrupt controller. -pub type IRQState = bindings::IRQState; - +/// /// Interrupts are implemented as a pointer to the interrupt "sink", which has /// type [`IRQState`]. A device exposes its source as a QOM link property using /// a function such as [`SysBusDeviceMethods::init_irq`], and @@ -41,7 +46,7 @@ pub struct InterruptSource<T = bool> where c_int: From<T>, { - cell: BqlCell<*mut IRQState>, + cell: BqlCell<*mut bindings::IRQState>,Once we've already wrapper IRQState in Opaque<>, should we still use bindings::IRQState? Although InterruptSource just stores a pointer. However, I think we can use wrapped IRQState here instead of the native binding type, since this item is also crossing the FFI boundary. What do you think?
Using the wrapped IRQState would be a bit more code because you have to cast the pointer all the time when calling C code. As far as correctness is concerned, it does not really matter because as you said it only stores a pointer.
However, if needed, InterruptSource could have a function that converts from IRQState to Option<&Opaque<irq::IRQState>>. Since the accessor is needed anyway, that would be a good place to put the conversion.
Paolo
