On Tue, 05 May 2015 14:43:19 +0200 Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > >> Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > >> > The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. > >> > There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls > >> > followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by > >> > calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). > >> > >> Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. > > > > I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it. > > > >> > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> > >> > --- > >> > qjson.c | 10 +++++----- > >> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> > >> > >> Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some > >> QAPI/QMP tree. > > > > The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through > > the migration tree? > > > I will take it, but I trust your reviews-by O:-) I've already applied this one to the QMP tree. > > > > > Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have > > exactly the same name? > > Alex? I guess alex have this implementation when he did the code long > ago? > > Later, Juan. >
