From: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eduardo Habkost <eduardo@habkost.net>
Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, mst@redhat.com,
alistair.francis@wdc.com, xiaoyao.li@intel.com,
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>,
Bernhard Beschow <shentey@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] qom: reverse order of instance_post_init calls
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 16:08:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bd5ccffc-5e8c-4b87-9168-01a964dd6f0a@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250203114132.259155-1-pbonzini@redhat.com>
Hi Paolo,
On 3/2/25 12:41, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Currently, the instance_post_init calls are performed from the leaf
> class and all the way up to Object. This is incorrect because the
> leaf class cannot observe property values applied by the superclasses;
> for example, a compat property will be set on a device *after*
> the class's post_init callback has run.
>
> In particular this makes it impossible for implementations of
> accel_cpu_instance_init() to operate based on the actual values of
> the properties, though it seems that cxl_dsp_instance_post_init and
> rp_instance_post_init might have similar issues.
>
> Follow instead the same order as instance_init, starting with Object
> and running the child class's instance_post_init after the parent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> ---
> qom/object.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/qom/object.c b/qom/object.c
> index 157a45c5f8b..c03cd3c7339 100644
> --- a/qom/object.c
> +++ b/qom/object.c
> @@ -423,13 +423,13 @@ static void object_init_with_type(Object *obj, TypeImpl *ti)
>
> static void object_post_init_with_type(Object *obj, TypeImpl *ti)
> {
> - if (ti->instance_post_init) {
> - ti->instance_post_init(obj);
> - }
> -
> if (type_has_parent(ti)) {
> object_post_init_with_type(obj, type_get_parent(ti));
> }
> +
> + if (ti->instance_post_init) {
> + ti->instance_post_init(obj);
> + }
> }
I'm not opposed to this change as I had a similar issue there few weeks
ago, but I feel we are changing one problem by another. IIRC some class
post_init() handlers check the instance correctly did something. But I
don't recall any example in particular. The documentation isn't clear
about order (include/qom/object.h):
* @instance_post_init: This function is called to finish
* initialization of an object, after
* all @instance_init functions were
* called.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-04 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-03 11:41 [PATCH] qom: reverse order of instance_post_init calls Paolo Bonzini
2025-02-04 15:08 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé [this message]
2025-02-04 15:18 ` Peter Maydell
2025-02-04 15:26 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bd5ccffc-5e8c-4b87-9168-01a964dd6f0a@linaro.org \
--to=philmd@linaro.org \
--cc=alistair.francis@wdc.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=eduardo@habkost.net \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=shentey@gmail.com \
--cc=xiaoyao.li@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).