Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] qapi: allow unions to contain further unions

[Het Gala]

On 31/03/23 5:19 pm, Het Gala wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On 17/03/23 9:25 pm, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> > > Currently it is not possible for a union type to contain a
> > > further union as one (or more) of its branches. This relaxes
> > > that restriction and adds the calls needed to validate field
> > > name uniqueness as unions are flattened.
> > I apologize for the long delay.  Sick child, sick me, much snot, little
> > sleep.
> >
> > PATCH 1 is wrong, but I was able to figure out what's going on there,
> > and suggested a patch that hopefully works.
> >
> > PATCH 2 is okay.  I suggested a few tweaks.  I'd put it first, but
> > that's up to you.
> >
> > PATCH 3 looks good.
> >
> > Looking forward to v3.
>
> Thankyou Markus for your suggestions and I hope everyone is in good 
> health now. This is just a friendly reminder if Daniel is ready with 
> v3 patches for the same :)
>
> Regards,
> Het Gala

Hi, this is just a reminder mail to check if Daniel has plan to post v3 
patches in the coming days. Would like these patches to get merged in 
qemu as soon as possible, so that we all can focus on restructuring of 
'migrate' QAPI :)

Regards,
Het Gala