From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46715) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cilaS-0004gx-Vw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:29:21 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cilaP-00022C-Td for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:29:21 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35164) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cilaP-000220-Oo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:29:17 -0500 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF7E68553C for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 17:29:17 +0000 (UTC) From: Markus Armbruster References: <1488145424-14974-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1488145424-14974-18-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <915e35bf-bac6-43cd-29f2-176984971310@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:29:14 +0100 In-Reply-To: <915e35bf-bac6-43cd-29f2-176984971310@redhat.com> (Eric Blake's message of "Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:56:56 -0600") Message-ID: <87shmyql5h.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 17/26] qapi: Drop unused non-strict qobject input visitor List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Eric Blake writes: > On 02/26/2017 03:43 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> The split between tests/test-qobject-input-visitor.c and >> tests/test-qobject-input-strict.c now makes less sense than ever. The >> next commit will take care of that. >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster >> --- > > If I read Paolo's thread correctly, we were deferring his patches that > relied on a non-strict visit until 2.10. And we can re-add non-strict > via a new constructor, rather than adding back a bool parameter to all > existing callers, so it doesn't hurt too badly that we are doing this > now for 2.9 (or a revert always works, if it is justified). Yup. > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake > > >> @@ -276,7 +269,6 @@ static GenericList *qobject_input_next_list(Visitor *v, GenericList *tail, >> return tail->next; >> } >> >> - >> static void qobject_input_start_alternate(Visitor *v, const char *name, >> GenericAlternate **obj, size_t size, >> bool promote_int, Error **errp) > > Spurious hunk? Yes, will drop. Thanks!