On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 18:09:06 -0200 Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 08:00:09PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > > Am 06.12.2012 22:12, schrieb Igor Mammedov: > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > v2: > > > - replace visit_type_freq() with visit_type_unit_suffixed_int() > > > in x86_cpuid_set_tsc_freq() > > > --- > > > target-i386/cpu.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c > > > index c6c2ca0..b7f0aba 100644 > > > --- a/target-i386/cpu.c > > > +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c > > > @@ -1195,7 +1195,7 @@ static void x86_cpuid_set_tsc_freq(Object *obj, > > > Visitor *v, void *opaque, const int64_t max = INT64_MAX; > > > int64_t value; > > > > > > - visit_type_int(v, &value, name, errp); > > > + visit_type_unit_suffixed_int(v, &value, name, 1000, errp); > > > if (error_is_set(errp)) { > > > return; > > > } > > > > This trivial usage is fine obviously. But since this series set out to > > make things more generic I am missing at least one use case for 1024. > > Does nothing like that exist in qdev-properties.c or so already? > > cutils.c has: > > int64_t strtosz_suffix(const char *nptr, char **end, const char > default_suffix) { > return strtosz_suffix_unit(nptr, end, default_suffix, 1024); > } > > $ git grep -w strtosz_suffix > [...] > qapi/opts-visitor.c: val = strtosz_suffix(opt->str ? opt->str : "", > &endptr, qemu-img.c: sval = strtosz_suffix(argv[optind++], &end, > STRTOSZ_DEFSUFFIX_B); qemu-img.c: sval = strtosz_suffix(optarg, > &end, STRTOSZ_DEFSUFFIX_B); > > The opts-visitor.c match, in turn, is inside opts_type_size(), that's the > ->type_size method of OptsVisitor. There are many 'size' elements inside > qapi-schema.json. > > I don't see any code using visit_type_size() directly, but I see two users > of type 'size' on qapi-schema.json: NetdevTapOptions and NetdevDumpOptions. > > I didn't know that we already had a visitor method using the suffixed-int > parsing code. Should we change the visit_type_size() code to be to use use > the new generic ->type_suffixed_int method and kill ->type_size? If there isn't strong opposition to do it in incremental way, I'd prefer for these patches go in first. And then later fix users of visit_type_size() to use type_suffixed_int() or maybe have a new type_suffixed_uint() so that size could be represented as uint64_t instead of int64_t as it's now. That would require to rewrite strtosz_* and its callers a bit.