[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 11/29] libqtest: Inline qtest_query_target_en
From: |
Thomas Huth |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 11/29] libqtest: Inline qtest_query_target_endianness() |
Date: |
Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:25:54 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 |
On 01.09.2017 20:03, Eric Blake wrote:
> There was only one caller; it's easier to inline things.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
> ---
> tests/libqtest.c | 22 ++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/libqtest.c b/tests/libqtest.c
> index 5d16351e24..b6dd26e54a 100644
> --- a/tests/libqtest.c
> +++ b/tests/libqtest.c
> @@ -244,20 +244,6 @@ redo:
> return words;
> }
>
> -static int qtest_query_target_endianness(QTestState *s)
> -{
> - gchar **args;
> - int big_endian;
> -
> - qtest_sendf(s, "endianness\n");
> - args = qtest_rsp(s, 1);
> - g_assert(strcmp(args[1], "big") == 0 || strcmp(args[1], "little") == 0);
> - big_endian = strcmp(args[1], "big") == 0;
> - g_strfreev(args);
> -
> - return big_endian;
> -}
> -
> static void cleanup_sigabrt_handler(void)
> {
> sigaction(SIGABRT, &sigact_old, NULL);
> @@ -288,6 +274,7 @@ QTestState *qtest_init_without_qmp_handshake(const char
> *extra_args)
> gchar *qmp_socket_path;
> gchar *command;
> const char *qemu_binary;
> + gchar **args;
>
> qemu_binary = getenv("QTEST_QEMU_BINARY");
> if (!qemu_binary) {
> @@ -351,8 +338,11 @@ QTestState *qtest_init_without_qmp_handshake(const char
> *extra_args)
> }
>
> /* ask endianness of the target */
> -
> - s->big_endian = qtest_query_target_endianness(s);
> + qtest_sendf(s, "endianness\n");
> + args = qtest_rsp(s, 1);
> + g_assert(strcmp(args[1], "big") == 0 || strcmp(args[1], "little") == 0);
> + s->big_endian = strcmp(args[1], "big") == 0;
> + g_strfreev(args);
>
> return s;
> }
Ah, well, now that's another way of getting rid of the forward
declaration in the previous patch - so may I suggest to drop the
previous patch, and simply do the code inlining here instead?
Thomas