On Wed, 14 May 2025, Zhao Liu wrote:
Hi BALATON,
In case you did not know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_order#Hungary
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 02:02:48PM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 14:02:48 +0200
From: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] qom/object: Improve the doc of macros related with
simple type
On Wed, 14 May 2025, Zhao Liu wrote:
There're 2 changes:
- For OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE:
Since a clase may not only has virtual method, but also field, thus
class may not only have virtual methods but also fields, clarify when class
is not needed
Thanks for the polish! It sounds better.
It's also grammatically more correct. But I'm not a native English speaker
so may still be wrong.
mention when class is not needed for either, then there is no need
to have the class.
- For OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE_WITH_INTERFACES:
And the words like OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE about when the type is
declared by OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE, then user should consider
to define the type via OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE or
OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE_WITH_INTERFACES.
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
Cc: "Daniel P. Berrang?" <berra...@redhat.com>
Cc: Eduardo Habkost <edua...@habkost.net>
Signed-off-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1....@intel.com>
---
include/qom/object.h | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/qom/object.h b/include/qom/object.h
index 1d5b03372429..14f84ae454d3 100644
--- a/include/qom/object.h
+++ b/include/qom/object.h
@@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ struct Object
* declared.
*
* This macro should be used unless the class struct needs to have
- * virtual methods declared.
+ * virtual methods or fields declared.
*/
#define OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE(InstanceType, MODULE_OBJ_NAME) \
typedef struct InstanceType InstanceType; \
@@ -402,7 +402,8 @@ struct Object
*
* This is a variant of OBJECT_DEFINE_TYPE_EXTENDED, which is suitable for
* the case of a non-abstract type, with interfaces, and with no requirement
- * for a class struct.
+ * for a class struct. If you declared your type with
OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE
+ * then this is probably the right choice for defining it.
Is "probably" correct here? Is it a must or can still use other defining
macros?
Yes, because there's another choice: OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE.
If correct maybe saying "this might be the right choice" is simpler.
:-) I copied this sentence from the documentation of
OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE. The difference between these 2 macros is
OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE doesn't support interface.
So I'd like to keep this sentence, consistent with the description of
OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE.
OK in that case no problem to keep consistency. It still sounds a bit
unspecific for documentation to me because it leaves the question open of
what is it when it's not the right choice but if this is already there
then that's another unrelated question.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
