qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] QJSON: Use OBJECT_CHECK


From: Michael Roth
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] QJSON: Use OBJECT_CHECK
Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 11:19:05 -0500
User-agent: alot/0.3.6

Quoting Eduardo Habkost (2015-04-29 07:55:48)
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:38:02AM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > 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? In this case someone has to
> > post a different patch.
> 
> Just in the commit message.
> 
> > 
> > > 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.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > 
> > > 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?
> 
> qjson.c and qobject/qjson.c:to_json().

I'm guessing it's to avoid the need to build up a QObject throughout
the migration code, as opposed to just serializing metadata/vmstate
fields directly to string.

Does make me wonder though why we don't just use visit_type_{int,etc}()
interfaces to build up the QObject through a QMPOutputVisitor, then feed
the resulting QObject through the existing qobject/qjson.c code.

> 
> -- 
> Eduardo
> 




reply via email to

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