Re: [Question] What is the definition of “private” fields in QOM?

[BALATON Zoltan <balaton@eik.bme.hu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1468 bytes --]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2024, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 at 16:54, Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi maintainers and list,
>>
>> In the QOM structure, the class and object structs have two members:
>> parent_class and parent_obj, which are often marked as "< private >" in
>> the comment.
>>
>> I couldn’t find information on why to define ‘private’ and ‘public’,
>> even in the earliest QOM commits and the patch emails I could find.
>
> This is a rather old thing which I think was originally
> borrowed from glib's commenting convention.
>
> I'm fairly sure that we decided a while back that they were entirely
> unnecessary, so you don't need to add them in new code. (I can't
> actually find anything with a quick list search about that though
> so maybe I'm misremembering.)

I think the current convention was discussed around here:
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/33641fa3-f617-3151-e7ca-becaf06e2641@ilande.co.uk/
but looks like it did not make it into docs/devel/qom.rst to make it 
clear for all.

If your search found nothing on lists.gnu.org/archive maybe it has 
something to do with this message printed there:

References: [ (The index is locked for maintenance) ]

I don't know what that means but all searches seem to return the same 
currently.

Regards,
BALATON Zoltan

> Either way, there's still a lot of them floating around in the codebase
> that were added before we made that decision.
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
>