qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/6] qapi: support nested structs in OptsVisi


From: Kővágó Zoltán
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/6] qapi: support nested structs in OptsVisitor
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:02:00 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0

2015-06-17 15:41 keltezéssel, Markus Armbruster írta:
"Kővágó Zoltán" <address@hidden> writes:

2015-06-17 13:18 keltezéssel, Markus Armbruster írta:
Copying Kevin because similar issues exist in the block layer.

Gerd Hoffmann <address@hidden> writes:

On Mi, 2015-06-17 at 09:50 +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Copying László because his fingerprints are on OptsVisitor.

"Kővágó, Zoltán" <address@hidden> writes:

The current OptsVisitor flattens the whole structure, if there are
same named
fields under different paths (like `in' and `out' in `Audiodev'),
the current
visitor can't cope with them (for example setting
frequency=44100' will set the
in's frequency to 44100 and leave out's frequency unspecified).

This patch fixes it, by the following changes:
1) Specifying just the field name will apply to all fields that has the
     specified name (this means it would set both in's and out's
frequency to
     44100 in the above example).

What if they have different types?

What if one of them can't take the value?

Currently it will error out, requiring the user to be more
explicit. Probably not the best solution, but I can't really think of
a better solution. (If we would ignore invalid values that would be
very confusing imho.)

Yes, we clearly don't want foo=0 to set a.foo and b.foo, but foo=x set
only a.foo, because the former can take any string, but the latter only
a number.

Can we require the LHS to be unambiguous?

Originally I designed it that way because it allows you to specify frequency=44100 and set both in.frequency and out.frequency. But this could also be the convenience feature that we not really need. I don't see any other downside of making it unambigous.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]