Re: [PATCH for-5.1 5/8] qemu-option: Fix has_help_option()'s sloppy parsing

[Markus Armbruster]

Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 14.04.2020 um 12:16 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
>> Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > On 4/9/20 10:30 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> has_help_option() uses its own parser.  It's inconsistent with
>> >> qemu_opts_parse(), as demonstrated by test-qemu-opts case
>> >> /qemu-opts/has_help_option.  Fix by reusing the common parser.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>
>> >> @@ -165,26 +165,6 @@ void parse_option_size(const char *name, const char 
>> >> *value,
>> >>       *ret = size;
>> >>   }
>> >>   -bool has_help_option(const char *param)
>> >> -{
>> >> -    const char *p = param;
>> >> -    bool result = false;
>> >> -
>> >> -    while (*p && !result) {
>> >> -        char *value;
>> >> -
>> >> -        p = get_opt_value(p, &value);
>> >> -        if (*p) {
>> >> -            p++;
>> >> -        }
>> >> -
>> >> -        result = is_help_option(value);
>> >
>> > Old code: both 'help' and '?' are accepted.
>> >
>> >> +bool has_help_option(const char *params)
>> >> +{
>> >> +    const char *p;
>> >> +    char *name, *value;
>> >> +    bool ret;
>> >> +
>> >> +    for (p = params; *p;) {
>> >> +        p = get_opt_name_value(p, NULL, &name, &value);
>> >> +        ret = !strcmp(name, "help");
>> >
>> > New code: only 'help' is accepted.  Is the loss of '?' intentional?
>> 
>> No.  Will fix, thanks!
>
> Please also add some '?' test cases while you're at it.

Okay.