Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/8] qapi: Add Visitor interfaces for uint*_t and int*_t

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 06/09/12 17:16, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 09.06.2012 17:03, schrieb Laszlo Ersek:
>> On 06/08/12 17:35, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> From: Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> This adds visitor interfaces for fixed-width integers types.
>>> Implementing these in visitors is optional, otherwise we fall back to
>>> visit_type_int() (int64_t) with some additional bounds checking to avoid
>>> integer overflows for cases where the value fetched exceeds the bounds
>>> of our target C type.
>>
>>> diff --git a/qapi/qapi-visit-core.h b/qapi/qapi-visit-core.h
>>> index e850746..a19d70c 100644
>>> --- a/qapi/qapi-visit-core.h
>>> +++ b/qapi/qapi-visit-core.h
>>> @@ -52,6 +52,14 @@ struct Visitor
>>>      void (*start_handle)(Visitor *v, void **obj, const char *kind,
>>>                           const char *name, Error **errp);
>>>      void (*end_handle)(Visitor *v, Error **errp);
>>> +    void (*type_uint8)(Visitor *v, uint8_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +    void (*type_uint16)(Visitor *v, uint16_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +    void (*type_uint32)(Visitor *v, uint32_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +    void (*type_uint64)(Visitor *v, uint64_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +    void (*type_int8)(Visitor *v, int8_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +    void (*type_int16)(Visitor *v, int16_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +    void (*type_int32)(Visitor *v, int32_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +    void (*type_int64)(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  void visit_start_handle(Visitor *v, void **obj, const char *kind,
>>> @@ -69,6 +77,14 @@ void visit_end_optional(Visitor *v, Error **errp);
>>>  void visit_type_enum(Visitor *v, int *obj, const char *strings[],
>>>                       const char *kind, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>>  void visit_type_int(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +void visit_type_uint8(Visitor *v, uint8_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +void visit_type_uint16(Visitor *v, uint16_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +void visit_type_uint32(Visitor *v, uint32_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +void visit_type_uint64(Visitor *v, uint64_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +void visit_type_int8(Visitor *v, int8_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +void visit_type_int16(Visitor *v, int16_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +void visit_type_int32(Visitor *v, int32_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>> +void visit_type_int64(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>>  void visit_type_bool(Visitor *v, bool *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>>  void visit_type_str(Visitor *v, char **obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>>  void visit_type_number(Visitor *v, double *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
>>
>> Shouldn't "scripts/qapi.py" be extended accordingly? (The c_type function.)
> 
> What does that affect?
> Is it a blocker for this PULL or an improvement for a follow-up?

The latter. As long as nothing actually uses these types there's no problem.

Laszlo