On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 19:57:35 +0100 Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 06.12.2012 22:12, schrieb Igor Mammedov: > > Caller of visit_type_unit_suffixed_int() will have to specify > > value of 'K' suffix via unit argument. > > For Kbytes it's 1024, for Khz it's 1000. > > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> > > --- > > v2: > > - convert type_freq to type_unit_suffixed_int. > > - provide qapi_dealloc_type_unit_suffixed_int() impl. > > --- > > qapi/qapi-dealloc-visitor.c | 7 +++++++ > > qapi/qapi-visit-core.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > > qapi/qapi-visit-core.h | 8 ++++++++ > > qapi/string-input-visitor.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 50 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/qapi/qapi-dealloc-visitor.c b/qapi/qapi-dealloc-visitor.c > > index 75214e7..57e662c 100644 > > --- a/qapi/qapi-dealloc-visitor.c > > +++ b/qapi/qapi-dealloc-visitor.c > > @@ -143,6 +143,12 @@ static void qapi_dealloc_type_enum(Visitor *v, int > > *obj, const char *strings[], { > > } > > > > +static void qapi_dealloc_type_unit_suffixed_int(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, > > + const char *name, > > + const int unit, Error > > **errp) +{ > > +} > > + > > Visitor *qapi_dealloc_get_visitor(QapiDeallocVisitor *v) > > { > > return &v->visitor; > > @@ -170,6 +176,7 @@ QapiDeallocVisitor *qapi_dealloc_visitor_new(void) > > v->visitor.type_str = qapi_dealloc_type_str; > > v->visitor.type_number = qapi_dealloc_type_number; > > v->visitor.type_size = qapi_dealloc_type_size; > > + v->visitor.type_unit_suffixed_int = > > qapi_dealloc_type_unit_suffixed_int; > > QTAILQ_INIT(&v->stack); > > > > diff --git a/qapi/qapi-visit-core.c b/qapi/qapi-visit-core.c > > index 7a82b63..dcbc1a9 100644 > > --- a/qapi/qapi-visit-core.c > > +++ b/qapi/qapi-visit-core.c > > @@ -311,3 +311,16 @@ void input_type_enum(Visitor *v, int *obj, const > > char *strings[], g_free(enum_str); > > *obj = value; > > } > > + > > +void visit_type_unit_suffixed_int(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char > > *name, > > + const int unit, Error **errp) > > +{ > > + if (!error_is_set(errp)) { > > if (error_is_set(errp)) { Thanks, I'll fix it. > > + return; > > + } > > + if (v->type_unit_suffixed_int) { > > + v->type_unit_suffixed_int(v, obj, name, unit, errp); > > + } else { > > + visit_type_int64(v, obj, name, errp); > > + } > > +} > > diff --git a/qapi/qapi-visit-core.h b/qapi/qapi-visit-core.h > > index 60aceda..04e690a 100644 > > --- a/qapi/qapi-visit-core.h > > +++ b/qapi/qapi-visit-core.h > > @@ -62,6 +62,12 @@ struct Visitor > > void (*type_int64)(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char *name, Error > > **errp); /* visit_type_size() falls back to (*type_uint64)() if type_size > > is unset */ void (*type_size)(Visitor *v, uint64_t *obj, const char > > *name, Error **errp); > > + /* > > + * visit_unit_suffixed_int() falls back to (*type_int64)() > > + * if type_unit_suffixed_int is unset > > + */ > > Indentation is one off. ditto > > > + void (*type_unit_suffixed_int)(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char > > *name, > > + const int unit, Error **errp); > > Are we expecting differently suffixed ints? Otherwise we could > optionally shorten to type_suffixed_int (but that probably still doesn't > fit within one comment line ;)). Not with current implementation. I'll shorten it as you've suggested. > > > }; > > > > void visit_start_handle(Visitor *v, void **obj, const char *kind, > > @@ -91,5 +97,7 @@ void visit_type_size(Visitor *v, uint64_t *obj, const > > char *name, Error **errp); void visit_type_bool(Visitor *v, bool *obj, > > const char *name, Error **errp); void visit_type_str(Visitor *v, char > > **obj, const char *name, Error **errp); void visit_type_number(Visitor > > *v, double *obj, const char *name, Error **errp); +void > > visit_type_unit_suffixed_int(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char *name, > > + const int unit, Error **errp); > > > > #endif > > diff --git a/qapi/string-input-visitor.c b/qapi/string-input-visitor.c > > index 497eb9a..d2bd154 100644 > > --- a/qapi/string-input-visitor.c > > +++ b/qapi/string-input-visitor.c > > @@ -110,6 +110,27 @@ static void parse_start_optional(Visitor *v, bool > > *present, *present = true; > > } > > > > +static void parse_type_unit_suffixed_int(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, > > + const char *name, const int > > unit, > > + Error **errp) > > +{ > > + StringInputVisitor *siv = DO_UPCAST(StringInputVisitor, visitor, v); > > + char *endp = (char *) siv->string; > > + long long val = 0; > > + > > + if (siv->string) { > > + val = strtosz_suffix_unit(siv->string, &endp, > > + STRTOSZ_DEFSUFFIX_B, unit); > > + } > > + if (!siv->string || val == -1 || *endp) { > > + error_set(errp, QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE, name, > > + "a value representable as a non-negative int64"); > > Weird indentation remaining, looks as if we could align with errp within > 80 chars. Thanks, I'll fix it. > > However, I wonder if "unit" is the (physically etc.) correct term here? > Isn't the "unit" Hz / byte / ... and 1000 more of a conversion factor or > something? At least that's the way I've seen unit used in the API of > another project, passing an enum of Hertz, gram, meter/second, etc. If we are to generalize it to integer than units might not make much sense, they could be anything. Perhaps 'suffix_factor' would be descriptive enough + adding documentation comment to the visitor. > > Andreas > > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + *obj = val; > > +} > > + > > Visitor *string_input_get_visitor(StringInputVisitor *v) > > { > > return &v->visitor; > > @@ -132,6 +153,7 @@ StringInputVisitor *string_input_visitor_new(const > > char *str) v->visitor.type_str = parse_type_str; > > v->visitor.type_number = parse_type_number; > > v->visitor.start_optional = parse_start_optional; > > + v->visitor.type_unit_suffixed_int = parse_type_unit_suffixed_int; > > > > v->string = str; > > return v; > > > >