On 10/29/21 16:01, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 10/28/21 12:25, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> The generated visitor functions call visit_deprecated_accept() and >>> visit_deprecated() when visiting a struct member with special feature >>> flag 'deprecated'. This makes the feature flag visible to the actual >>> visitors. I want to make feature flag 'unstable' visible there as >>> well, so I can add policy for it. >>> >>> To let me make it visible, replace these functions by >>> visit_policy_reject() and visit_policy_skip(), which take the member's >>> special features as an argument. Note that the new functions have the >>> opposite sense, i.e. the return value flips. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> include/qapi/visitor-impl.h | 6 ++++-- >>> include/qapi/visitor.h | 17 +++++++++++++---- >>> qapi/qapi-forward-visitor.c | 16 +++++++++------- >>> qapi/qapi-visit-core.c | 22 ++++++++++++---------- >>> qapi/qobject-input-visitor.c | 15 ++++++++++----- >>> qapi/qobject-output-visitor.c | 9 ++++++--- >>> qapi/trace-events | 4 ++-- >>> scripts/qapi/visit.py | 14 +++++++------- >>> 8 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) >>> case COMPAT_POLICY_INPUT_CRASH: >> >> Clearer as: >> >> abort(); >> default: >> g_assert_not_reached(); > > Maybe, but making it so has nothing to do with this patch. It could > perhaps be done in PATCH 8, or in a followup patch. > >> Otherwise, >> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Okay to tack your R-by to the unmodified patch? Sure.
