On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 02:06:14PM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 14:06:14 +0200
> From: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] docs/devel/qom: Fix the doc about
> OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE
>
> On Wed, 14 May 2025, Zhao Liu wrote:
> > Currently, the expansion example of OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE "roughly"
> > reflects what OBJECT_DECLARE_TYPE is doing.
> >
> > Why "roughly"? Because this line -
> >
> > > G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC(MyDeviceClass, object_unref)
> >
> > - is also wrong for OBJECT_DECLARE_TYPE.
> >
> > Fix the expansion example of OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE, especially
> > drop that definition of MyDeviceClass.
> >
> > 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>
> > ---
> > docs/devel/qom.rst | 11 +----------
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/docs/devel/qom.rst b/docs/devel/qom.rst
> > index 5870745ba27b..185f4c2f5921 100644
> > --- a/docs/devel/qom.rst
> > +++ b/docs/devel/qom.rst
> > @@ -326,21 +326,12 @@ This is equivalent to the following:
> > :caption: Expansion from declaring a simple type
> >
> > typedef struct MyDevice MyDevice;
> > - typedef struct MyDeviceClass MyDeviceClass;
> >
> > - G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC(MyDeviceClass, object_unref)
> > + G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC(MyDevice, object_unref)
> >
> > - #define MY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS(void *obj) \
> > - OBJECT_GET_CLASS(MyDeviceClass, obj, TYPE_MY_DEVICE)
> > - #define MY_DEVICE_CLASS(void *klass) \
> > - OBJECT_CLASS_CHECK(MyDeviceClass, klass, TYPE_MY_DEVICE)
> > #define MY_DEVICE(void *obj)
> > OBJECT_CHECK(MyDevice, obj, TYPE_MY_DEVICE)
> >
> > - struct MyDeviceClass {
> > - DeviceClass parent_class;
> > - };
> > -
> > The 'struct MyDevice' needs to be declared separately.
> > If the type requires virtual functions to be declared in the class
> > struct, then the alternative OBJECT_DECLARE_TYPE() macro can be
>
> Maybe you need to adjust the text here about OBJECT_DECLARE_TYPE here and
> show how to define Class sturct?
Then it's not easy to organize the structure in this document, since
most of the content is now make "OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE" as well as
"OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE" as examples... I'm a bit unsure, and we can
wait and see what others would say.
BTW, I found I missed this sentence:
"(OBJECT_DECLARE_TYPE) This does the same as OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE(),
but without the 'struct MyDeviceClass' definition."
It should be: This does the same as OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE(),
but with the class type.
Thanks,
Zhao
