Am 05.07.2012 11:53, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Il 05/07/2012 00:34, Andreas Färber ha scritto: >>>> Just to clarify: replacing upcasts which are always safe >>>> with downcasts which can fail is what I consider especially ugly. >> As per Anthony the parent field in the QOM instance structs is not >> supposed to be touched (cf. object.h). We mark it /*< private >*/ so >> that it doesn't even show up in gtk-doc documentation. If it is unused, >> its name becomes irrelevant and could even be "reserved" if we so >> wanted. Renaming it to whatever proves that all old references are gone. > > I disagree with removing static checks whenever possible. > >> Background is that qdev and QOM work differently with regards to >> inheritance: as mentioned in the preceding patch, for qdev the parent >> was (had to be) identified by name and could be anywhere in the struct; > > Not entirely true, being at the beginning of the struct is already > enforced by using DO_UPCAST (which is admittedly a strange name for a > downcast macro) instead of container_of.
If you look at the patchset you will find that it was not properly enforced! Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
