Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> writes: > I'd also note that the use of "parent" in the code is also > ambiguous. It can mean: > > * QOM parent type, i.e. TypeInfo.parent. Related fields: > * parent_class members of class structs > * parent_obj members of object structs
I hate the use of "parent" and "child" for a super- / subtype relation. Correcting the terminology there would be short term pain for long term gain. Worthwhile? > * QOM composition tree parent object, i.e. Object::parent > * qdev device parent bus, i.e. DeviceState::parent_bus > * parent device of of qdev bus, i.e. BusState::parent These are tree relations. Use of "parent" and "child" is perfectly fine.
