Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 02:09:43PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> This copies the code implementing the policy from qapi/qmp-dispatch.c
>> to qapi/qobject-input-visitor.c. Tolerable, but if we acquire more
>> copes, we should look into factoring them out.
>
> copies
Fixing, thanks!
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.rst | 6 ++++--
>> qapi/compat.json | 3 ++-
>> include/qapi/util.h | 6 +++++-
>> qapi/qapi-visit-core.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
>> scripts/qapi/types.py | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>> 5 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.rst b/docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.rst
>> index 00334e9fb8..006a6f4a9a 100644
>> --- a/docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.rst
>> +++ b/docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.rst
>> @@ -708,8 +708,10 @@ QEMU shows a certain behaviour.
>> Special features
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> -Feature "deprecated" marks a command, event, or struct member as
>> -deprecated. It is not supported elsewhere so far.
>> +Feature "deprecated" marks a command, event, struct or enum member as
>
> Do we want the comma before the conjunction? (I've seen style guides
> that recommend it, and style guides that discourage it; while I tend
> to write by the former style, I usually don't care about the latter.
> Rather, switching styles mid-patch caught my attention).
With a comma there, we claim structs can be marked, which is actually
wrong. Correct is "command, event, struct member, or enum member".
I'll rephrase to "marks a command, event, enum value, or struct member
deprecated."
>> +deprecated. It is not supported elsewhere so far. Interfaces so
>> +marked may be withdrawn in future releases in accordance with QEMU's
>> +deprecation policy.
>>
>>
>> +++ b/qapi/qapi-visit-core.c
>> @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ static bool input_type_enum(Visitor *v, const char *name, int *obj,
>> const QEnumLookup *lookup, Error **errp)
>> {
>> int64_t value;
>> - char *enum_str;
>> + g_autofree char *enum_str = NULL;
>
> Nice change while touching the code. Is it worth mentioning in the
> commit message?
I figure it would be more distracting than useful.
>>
>> if (!visit_type_str(v, name, &enum_str, errp)) {
>> return false;
>> @@ -402,11 +402,23 @@ static bool input_type_enum(Visitor *v, const char *name, int *obj,
>> value = qapi_enum_parse(lookup, enum_str, -1, NULL);
>> if (value < 0) {
>> error_setg(errp, QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER, enum_str);
>> - g_free(enum_str);
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> - g_free(enum_str);
>> + if (lookup->flags && (lookup->flags[value] & QAPI_ENUM_DEPRECATED)) {
>> + switch (v->compat_policy.deprecated_input) {
>> + case COMPAT_POLICY_INPUT_ACCEPT:
>> + break;
>> + case COMPAT_POLICY_INPUT_REJECT:
>> + error_setg(errp, "Deprecated value '%s' disabled by policy",
>> + enum_str);
>> + return false;
>> + case COMPAT_POLICY_INPUT_CRASH:
>> + default:
>> + abort();
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> *obj = value;
>> return true;
>> }
>
> Grammar fixes are minor, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
