From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MTFsL-0000lh-Vf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:59:26 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MTFsG-0000Yp-RQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:59:25 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40774 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MTFsG-0000Xp-LC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:59:20 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:47284) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MTFsF-0007MT-6E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:59:19 -0400 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6LDxIpD020700 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:59:18 -0400 Message-ID: <4A65C9B1.8090200@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:59:13 +0200 From: Gerd Hoffmann MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 4/5] QemuOpts: framework for storing and parsing options. References: <1247756224-19219-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <1247756224-19219-5-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <4A602234.50208@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4A602234.50208@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 07/17/09 09:03, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Gerd Hoffmann schrieb: >> This stores device parameters in a better way than unparsed strings. >> >> New types: >> QemuOpt - one key-value pair. >> QemuOpts - group of key-value pairs, belonging to one >> device, i.e. one drive. >> QemuOptsList - list of some kind of devices, i.e. all drives. > > What about having the options typed like I did in qemu-option.[ch]? > > In general qemu-option seems to do more parsing/checking than QemuOpts > does, on the other hand it's not yet generic enough to suit everything. Yup, qemu-options has all in one struct, which fails on multiple instaces (i.e. two drives). > Maybe a combination of both would be the right thing? I think the question is here how and when we want to do the parsing. We could do it early, when parsing/storing the values. QemuOptsList could get a QEMUOptionParameter-like struct instead of the simple valid[] array. QemuOpts->value would become a union. qemu_opt_set handles parsing and stores in the union. qemu_opt_get() would move to qemu_opt_get_$type() and it would return the value from the matching union member. We could do it late, when using the values. Parsing would happen directly in qemu_opt_get_$type(). comments? cheers, Gerd