[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] QJSON: Use OBJECT_CHECK
From: |
Luiz Capitulino |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] QJSON: Use OBJECT_CHECK |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:54:11 -0400 |
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:46:38 +0200
Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am 29.04.2015 um 14:38 schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
> > On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:23:20 -0300
> > Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >>> Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> >>>> The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK.
> >>>> There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls
> >>>> followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by
> >>>> calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()).
> >>>
> >>> Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity.
> >
> > Everywhere? You mean, in other places?
>
> No, I count 3x in commit message including subject.
Ah, the problem is the *commit* message. Okay...
>
> Andreas
>
> > In this case someone has to
> > post a different patch.
> >
> >> I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> qjson.c | 10 +++++-----
> >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <address@hidden>
> >>>
> >>> Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some
> >>> QAPI/QMP tree.
> >>
> >> The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through
> >> the migration tree?
> >
> > It could be, but I can take it if nobody does.
> >
> >> Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have
> >> exactly the same name?
> >
> > Not sure I got it, which writers?
> >
>
>