On 23/10/20 17:33, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:30:41 -0400 > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:24:08PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:01:13 -0400 >>> Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The existing object_class_property_add_uint*_ptr() functions are >>>> not very useful, because they need a pointer to the property >>>> value, which can't really be provided before the object is >>>> created. >>>> >>>> Replace the pointer parameter in those functions with a >>>> `ptrdiff_t offset` parameter. >>>> >>>> Include a uint8 class property in check-qom-proplist unit tests, >>>> to ensure the feature is working. >>> >>> >>> Not sure I like approach, it's reinventing qdev pointer properties in QOM >>> form. >> >> Yes, and that's on purpose. If we want to eventually merge the >> two competing APIs into a single one, we need to make them >> converge. >> >>> I had an impression that Paolo wanted qdev pointer properties be gone >>> and replaced by something like link properties. >> >> This is completely unrelated to qdev pointer properties and link >> properties. The properties that use object_property_add_uint*_ptr() >> today are not qdev pointer properties and will never be link >> properties. They are just integer properties.
I think this series a step in the right direction, but please take more "inspiration" from link properties, which are done right. In particular, properties should have an optional check function and be read-only unless the check function is there. You can make the check function take an uint64_t for simplicity, so that all the check functions for uint properties have the same prototype. For example a single "property_check_uint_allow" function can allow setting the property (which is almost always wrong, but an easy cop out for this series). Paolo
