Hi On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:19 AM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/20 11:31 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:35 PM Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com > > <mailto:ehabk...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > This series replaces INTERFACE_CHECK with OBJECT_CHECK because > > both macros are exactly the same. > > > > The last patch is a new run of the OBJECT_CHECK -> > > DECLARE*_CHECKER* converter script that will convert the former > > INTERFACE_CHECK-based macros. > > > > > > Well, at least having a different macro allows to tweak qom > > implementation or replace it with something different more easily. > > > > I have some wip branch somewhere where I actually made Interface a > > different beast than Object (it was saving some fields, and avoiding > > some potentially wrong casts iirc - I didn't bother to upstream that > > yet). Also I have a different branch where I played with GObject to > > replace qom. In both cases, your proposal would have, or would make, the > > work more complicated. > > Considering "wip branch not bothered to upstream" as "fork", > your comment from [*] applies here... > > You can't blame upstream from doing cleanups and modernization, or > stagnating. Forks are forks, with all the pain they carry. If they > want to avoid the maintenance cost, they have to do the extra effort > to get it upstream. This is also a "sneaky way" to remind them that > effort is better spent in this direction. > > [*] https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg720284.html > > Fair enough. Note I didn't nack it, but in general the proposal seems to blurry some worthy semantic difference between object & interface. Maybe #define alias INTERFACE_CHECK with OBJECT_CHECK instead ? -- Marc-André Lureau
