Amos Kong <ak...@redhat.com> writes: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:10:40AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Amos Kong <ak...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 07:19:39PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >> Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > On 06/27/2013 08:22 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> >> >> Commit 1da48c6 called the new member "memory" after commit 3949e59 >> >> >> standardized "ringbuf". Rename for consistency. >> >> >> >> >> >> However, member name "memory" is visible in QMP since 1.5. It's >> >> >> undocumented just like the driver name. Keep it working anyway. >> >> >> >> >> >> Cc: qemu-sta...@nongnu.org >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> qapi-schema.json | 6 ++++-- >> >> >> qemu-char.c | 11 ++++++----- >> >> >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/qapi-schema.json b/qapi-schema.json >> >> >> index 6445da6..b3df8a5 100644 >> >> >> --- a/qapi-schema.json >> >> >> +++ b/qapi-schema.json >> >> >> @@ -3277,9 +3277,9 @@ >> >> >> ## >> >> >> # @ChardevRingbuf: >> >> >> # >> >> >> -# Configuration info for memory chardevs >> >> >> +# Configuration info for ring buffer chardevs. >> >> >> # >> >> >> -# @size: #optional Ringbuffer size, must be power of two, default is >> >> >> 65536 >> >> >> +# @size: #optional ring buffer size, must be power of two, default is >> >> >> 65536 >> >> >> # >> >> >> # Since: 1.5 >> >> >> ## >> >> >> @@ -3310,6 +3310,8 @@ >> >> >> 'spicevmc' : >> >> >> 'ChardevSpiceChannel', >> >> >> 'spiceport' : >> >> >> 'ChardevSpicePort', >> >> >> 'vc' : 'ChardevVC', >> >> >> + 'ringbuf': 'ChardevRingbuf', >> >> >> + # next one is just for >> >> >> compatibility >> >> >> 'memory' : 'ChardevRingbuf' } } >> >> > >> >> > Does JSON allow comments in the middle of content? Is this going to >> >> > screw up Amos' work on introspection? You may need to instead have a >> >> > comment before the open '{' stating that 'memory' is an alias within the >> >> > union for back-compat reasons. >> > >> > I didn't parse the json file by myself. I just used the parsed >> > dictionary. So it only needs to make qapi.py happy. >> > >> >> RFC 4627 doesn't do comments at all. >> >> >> >> This file is parsed by scripts/qapi.py, which as far as I can tell >> >> ignores lines starting with '#' anywhere in the input. >> > >> > Not anywhere, only start with '#' >> >> Isn't that what I said? >> >> > | def parse_schema(fp): >> > | exprs = [] >> > | raw_exprs = [] >> > | expr = '' >> > | expr_eval = None >> > | >> > | for line in fp: >> > | if line.startswith('#') or line == '\n': >> > >> > # ignores lines starting with '#' anywhere >> > if line.strip().startswith('#') >> > >> > | continue >> > | >> > >> > >> > So we should not add this kind of comment for back-compat. >> >> Now I'm confused. My patch adds a line that starts with '#'. >> parse_schema() ignores it. Works as designed. Why do you think we >> shouldn't do that? > > The comment line in your patch doen't start with '#', it starts with > blank-space. If we want qapi.py to process it, we need to do strip() > first.
Aha. I agree with your reading of parse_schema(). However, I get exactly identical generated files with and without this comment. Michael, Anthony, can you explain why? Any particular reason for requiring comments to start in column 0?