Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> writes: > Am 14.04.2020 um 12:16 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >> Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > On 4/9/20 10:30 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >> has_help_option() uses its own parser. It's inconsistent with >> >> qemu_opts_parse(), as demonstrated by test-qemu-opts case >> >> /qemu-opts/has_help_option. Fix by reusing the common parser. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > >> >> @@ -165,26 +165,6 @@ void parse_option_size(const char *name, const char >> >> *value, >> >> *ret = size; >> >> } >> >> -bool has_help_option(const char *param) >> >> -{ >> >> - const char *p = param; >> >> - bool result = false; >> >> - >> >> - while (*p && !result) { >> >> - char *value; >> >> - >> >> - p = get_opt_value(p, &value); >> >> - if (*p) { >> >> - p++; >> >> - } >> >> - >> >> - result = is_help_option(value); >> > >> > Old code: both 'help' and '?' are accepted. >> > >> >> +bool has_help_option(const char *params) >> >> +{ >> >> + const char *p; >> >> + char *name, *value; >> >> + bool ret; >> >> + >> >> + for (p = params; *p;) { >> >> + p = get_opt_name_value(p, NULL, &name, &value); >> >> + ret = !strcmp(name, "help"); >> > >> > New code: only 'help' is accepted. Is the loss of '?' intentional? >> >> No. Will fix, thanks! > > Please also add some '?' test cases while you're at it.
Okay.