From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33361) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X4uPl-0007jJ-9U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:08:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X4uPg-0001A9-99 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:08:13 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:15257) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X4uPf-0001A4-WD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:08:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 12:08:05 -0400 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20140709120805.46a66a7e@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53BD6339.2080305@redhat.com> References: <20140708141728.412a3f1c@redhat.com> <53BD6339.2080305@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.1?] scripts: qapi-event.py: support vendor extension List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel , wenchaoqemu@gmail.com On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 09:43:53 -0600 Eric Blake wrote: > On 07/08/2014 12:17 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > The event code generator barfs when it sees a dot in an event > > argument, this makes it impossible to support vendor extensions > > in event arguments as they always contain dots. Fix this by > > replacing dots by hyphens in the generated code. > > > > PS: Event names and QMP command arguments may suffer from the > > same issue, but I'm not checking/fixing them today. > > > > Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino > > --- > > scripts/qapi-event.py | 8 ++++---- > > scripts/qapi.py | 4 ++++ > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake > > This is borderline on whether it is a bug fix worth applying in 2.1 - it > is fixing something that is new to this release (event-as-qapi) and > which affects downstream vendors; but at the same time, it is something > which cannot be triggered _except_ by downstream vendors, which are > perfectly capable of applying this patch even if it misses 2.1. I'll > leave it up to you. I'm not sure it qualifies. On the one hand it's a bug in new code that didn't exist before, on the other hand this is by far not blocker and it doesn't cause any code to malfunction.