On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:12:45AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > Checking that the derived class is larger than the requested parent > class saves us from some obvious mistakes, but as written, it does not > catch all the cases; in particular, it is easy to forget to update a > VIR_CLASS_NEW when changing the 'parent' member from virObject to > virObjectLockabale, but where the size checks don't catch that. Add a > parameter for one more layer of sanity checking. > > Note that I did NOT change the fact that we require derived classes to > be larger (as the difference in size makes it easy to tell classes > apart), which means that even if a derived class has no functionality > to add (but rather exists for compiler-enforced type-safety), it must > still include a dummy member. But I did fix the wording of the error > message to match the code. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
