Hi BALATON, On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 02:02:48PM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 14:02:48 +0200 > From: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] qom/object: Improve the doc of macros related with > simple type > > 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
Thanks for the polish! It sounds better. > > 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. Berrang?" <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? Yes, because there's another choice: OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE. > If correct maybe saying "this might be the right choice" is simpler. :-) I copied this sentence from the documentation of OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE. The difference between these 2 macros is OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE doesn't support interface. So I'd like to keep this sentence, consistent with the description of OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE. Thanks, Zhao
