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 4F81ACD042C for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2026 01:49:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1vcwC3-0007i2-K5; Mon, 05 Jan 2026 20:49:07 -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 1vcwBw-0007gB-78 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2026 20:49:00 -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 1vcwBs-00063x-MZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2026 20:48:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1767664136; x=1799200136; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=oQw37mrPeKCONvqxalv6NuwWIUs2ilGsowyaUG3DAlI=; b=N2Gb3MQCoJ9rVdjKVt4CV7OYV+T6PfVkl2yYNS83oKIO+B+SEm/MRwFF 4dErb+37uQzioW175Clw3QB2DtSdEYxZD4ECgP4jfMzSuor6mgwqZoQmT ar0HqqQWlwyackfin3AQdzdCpTCCubG/pG2hKDihuHPJBvDWXpo82rM5G sqVSqIedeSuuq9FFxpnsPbCWhAsiD980f4QGVS5S83AlbwL/z7lzC+seA In39ECE0MbLFCkBFn/8n187lbutEyvhgap43E2Tj151iEwrcVDCGl6+Zf EVXkpvKCcS4vMdTXSe+Mt3JSuSI5OPCA6SFCKXdUFFevoPXSmhRDyfTLp A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: s+o/Q5sUTCqFZnMjfb95dQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 7dMn8AzNSROYQRTGIFffPg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11662"; a="69191602" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,204,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="69191602" Received: from fmviesa005.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.145]) by orvoesa108.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Jan 2026 17:48:52 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: wxjDbLhHQkKH49kU/7tWmA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: NTUsodWlTYC5Pp26oSc7YQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,204,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="207007568" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.39]) by fmviesa005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Jan 2026 17:48:50 -0800 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 10:14:15 +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> <20260105132820.4a411827@imammedo-mac> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260105132820.4a411827@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 > > 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. > > Ain't thouse accessors callbacks? > /I mean to you still can check flags inside of generic object property code > without touching setter/getter./ Ah, I see, the default flags is OBJ_PROP_FLAG_READWRITE and I can check them before calling setter/getter. > >This would introduces additional complexity. > > it still might be woth considering to compare this series with alternative approach. Yes, will try to reuse current ObjectPropertyFlags. Thanks, Zhao