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
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. Berrangé" <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? If correct maybe saying "this might be the right choice" is
simpler.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
*/
#define OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE_WITH_INTERFACES(ModuleObjName, \
module_obj_name, \
