Hi Peter, On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 10:25:07AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:25:07 +0100 > From: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > Subject: Re: [Question] What is the definition of “private” fields in > QOM? > > On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 at 16:54, Zhao Liu <zhao1....@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.)
Thanks for your explanation! So I understand that directly accessing parent_obj/parent_class is actually allowed. > Either way, there's still a lot of them floating around in the codebase > that were added before we made that decision. Yes, then I understand that <private> and <public> are historical burdens that can also be cleaned up. Thanks, Zhao
