From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NASWs-0001Wd-Hf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:11:50 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NASWr-0001Vr-Nb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:11:50 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33200 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NASWr-0001Vm-Jr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:11:49 -0500 Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk ([93.93.128.226]:49388) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NASWr-0001Ju-9X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:11:49 -0500 Message-ID: <4B02E746.2050007@collabora.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:11:18 +0000 From: Ian Molton MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] OPT_SIZE parsing References: <4B029916.6000809@collabora.co.uk> <200911171324.15230.paul@codesourcery.com> <4B02B1EF.70206@collabora.co.uk> <4B02D475.6040700@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4B02D475.6040700@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: Paul Brook , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On 11/17/09 15:23, Ian Molton wrote: >> I've cooked up this patch (attached) to add a SIZE property to qdevs. >> I've kept the same semantics as the OPT_SIZE parser for now. > > The error message should be adapted (s/Option/Property/ at least). Fixed locally. > Maybe also create a common function for parsing called by both > parse_size() and parse_option_size() to make sure OPT_SIZE and the new > size property accept the same syntax? The thought crossed my mind, but then I thought that as none of the other parsers share common code (yet), it didn't make sense. I can cook up another patch that allows the option parser to hook into the property parsing functions, or vice-versa, if you like? > Otherwise it looks fine to me. Cool - whats the submission procedure? I can make a git branch publicly available or I can send patches to someone... -Ian