On Wed, 21 Jun 2023, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
On 21/06/2023 12:41, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
This brings GLUEState in line with our current QOM guidelines.
Are these guidelines documented somewhere? I like this better than the
public/private comments (although I prefer no space at all with just
documenting that QOM object parents should not be accessed directly) but I
haven't seen it discussed and agreed upon so it looks like a convention you
defined but not documented anywhere. But it could be I missed the patch to
coding style or QOM docs to establish this convention.
Alex documented this earlier in the year: you can find this online at
https://qemu.readthedocs.io/en/master/devel/style.html#qemu-specific-idioms.
The examples in
https://qemu.readthedocs.io/en/master/devel/qom.html
now contradict that by using parent instead of parent_obj there.
If we really want to make these QOM object states stand out we might even
consider formatting these as
struct GLUEState { SysBusDevice parent_obj;
M68kCPU *cpu;
...
}
unless checkpatch would not like that or something.
I'm not overly convinced by this, and yes I suspect it would also require
some hacking on checkpatch.pl for it to work.
Nevermind, was just an idea. Blank line wiithout comments is also a good
convention and less weird looking than the above.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
ATB,
Mark.
