From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C25C7C2A072 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2026 07:30:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1vcf1k-0001FN-KC; Mon, 05 Jan 2026 02:29:20 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1vcf1i-0001F1-S4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2026 02:29:18 -0500 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([198.175.65.16]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1vcf1e-00067L-Uk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2026 02:29:18 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1767598155; x=1799134155; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Ko2tJYgDPuUFFCjsnDkPJJCMcM9k88miEBVTA1P8iE8=; b=h+Xc+kLZVyJYPHxxSFXEm5hGgCMNEWx5D21y6gLZmbON1tHYoWMS4Oxp s7kNJads/Vdyn+Woqv9MEm0JkJEPjRxLQ37nPaKJZ4tpaverFVvZcGw5R 03/fNkP4H4yIRU9mSTE++CxsUX5sAbbPFPiUUrHxxTpkiD8oj5IplYK/7 D5ToLIc+NQMA0UZpDDoQAizXgSMFi6NFSsZ+E31IFqhT8PwJ5Uf5xM0gC kJs3IpvifC/6a+6GeyhaMhx3Eufo3fzGODbvMsL1gyWXPh02vTFuKg9xl 3UJER0Skb92pYUpCzxZz2fa6HxyFERr0lxvs/vyHOrkYoPmfm8/2I8nWj A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: ECAp/ZB+TraXIFKNjqLxDg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 4Tfp9QUjTrKJlBfx7OFE2A== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11661"; a="69122212" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,203,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="69122212" Received: from fmviesa010.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.150]) by orvoesa108.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Jan 2026 23:29:11 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: qgWdcDe2QUuiwpTQEcQnbA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: APcGFu95RzKmrGcxVe44Tw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,203,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="203300183" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.39]) by fmviesa010.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2026 23:29:07 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 15:54:32 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Igor Mammedov Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Daniel P =?iso-8859-1?Q?=2E_Berrang=E9?= , Eduardo Habkost , Markus Armbruster , Thomas Huth , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Peter Maydell , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , BALATON Zoltan , Mark Cave-Ayland , devel@lists.libvirt.org, Zhao Liu Subject: Re: [RFC 01/10] qom: Rename ObjectPropertyFlags to ObjectPropertyAccessorFlags Message-ID: References: <20251202170502.3228625-1-zhao1.liu@intel.com> <20251202170502.3228625-2-zhao1.liu@intel.com> <20260102131253.5b60853b@imammedo-mac> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260102131253.5b60853b@imammedo-mac> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.175.65.16; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Thanks for looking at this! > > Therefore, rename ObjectPropertyFlags to ObjectPropertyAccessorFlags, > > and then the original name ObjectPropertyFlags can be used for other > > cases. > > I wonder if we can just make existing ObjectPropertyFlags per object as you are planing > and still continue using it for accessor flags. > > That basically will lets you use new flags everywhere without rewriting call sites > everywhere. I'm not sure about this. Currently, these read/write flags are actually specific to pointer properties (as showed by the changes in this patch, which all involve object_property_add_*_ptr() / object_class_property_add_*_ptr()). Other property types doesn't yet support flag parameters, so additional interface modifications are still needed. And for now other property types either need to explicitly specify get/set accessors (e.g., object_property_add_bool()) or directly use the default get/set methods (e.g., object_property_add_link()). If we extend read/write flags to other property types, such as adding "flags" argument to object_property_add_bool(), we must ensure the OBJ_PROP_FLAG_READ flag align with "get" argument and OBJ_PROP_FLAG_WRITE flag align with "set" parameters. This would introduces additional complexity. Thanks, Zhao