On Wed, 14 May 2025, Zhao Liu wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 02:06:14PM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 14:06:14 +0200
From: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] docs/devel/qom: Fix the doc about
OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE
On Wed, 14 May 2025, Zhao Liu wrote:
Currently, the expansion example of OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE "roughly"
reflects what OBJECT_DECLARE_TYPE is doing.
Why "roughly"? Because this line -
G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC(MyDeviceClass, object_unref)
- is also wrong for OBJECT_DECLARE_TYPE.
Fix the expansion example of OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE, especially
drop that definition of MyDeviceClass.
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
Cc: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berra...@redhat.com>
Cc: Eduardo Habkost <edua...@habkost.net>
Signed-off-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1....@intel.com>
---
docs/devel/qom.rst | 11 +----------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/devel/qom.rst b/docs/devel/qom.rst
index 5870745ba27b..185f4c2f5921 100644
--- a/docs/devel/qom.rst
+++ b/docs/devel/qom.rst
@@ -326,21 +326,12 @@ This is equivalent to the following:
:caption: Expansion from declaring a simple type
typedef struct MyDevice MyDevice;
- typedef struct MyDeviceClass MyDeviceClass;
- G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC(MyDeviceClass, object_unref)
+ G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC(MyDevice, object_unref)
- #define MY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS(void *obj) \
- OBJECT_GET_CLASS(MyDeviceClass, obj, TYPE_MY_DEVICE)
- #define MY_DEVICE_CLASS(void *klass) \
- OBJECT_CLASS_CHECK(MyDeviceClass, klass, TYPE_MY_DEVICE)
#define MY_DEVICE(void *obj)
OBJECT_CHECK(MyDevice, obj, TYPE_MY_DEVICE)
- struct MyDeviceClass {
- DeviceClass parent_class;
- };
-
The 'struct MyDevice' needs to be declared separately.
If the type requires virtual functions to be declared in the class
struct, then the alternative OBJECT_DECLARE_TYPE() macro can be
Maybe you need to adjust the text here about OBJECT_DECLARE_TYPE here and
show how to define Class sturct?
Then it's not easy to organize the structure in this document, since
most of the content is now make "OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE" as well as
"OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE" as examples... I'm a bit unsure, and we can
wait and see what others would say.
BTW, I found I missed this sentence:
"(OBJECT_DECLARE_TYPE) This does the same as OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE(),
but without the 'struct MyDeviceClass' definition."
It should be: This does the same as OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE(),
but with the class type.
Yes that's what I meant. If you remove the class example then how will
readers know how to define that so a new example for that may be needed
but you can wait for others' opinion too.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
