Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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.
I saw it later on the thread, I was about to say that all for you O:-) > >> >> > >> > 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. >>
