Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > *** WARNING: THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT(S) CONTAIN MACROS *** > *** MACROS MAY CONTAIN MALICIOUS CODE *** > *** Open only if you can verify and trust the sender *** > *** Please contact info...@redhat.com if you have questions or concerns **
Looks like infosec crapped over your commit message. > Checking that a given QAPISchemaObjectTypeVariant.name is a > member of the corresponding QAPISchemaEnumType of the owning > QAPISchemaObjectTypeVariants.tag_member ensures that there are > no collisions in the generated C union for those tag values > (since the enum itself should have no collisions). > > However, ever since its introduction in f51d8c3d, this was the > only additional action of of Variant.check(), beyond calling > the superclass Member.check(). This forces a difference in > .check() signatures, just to pass the enum type down. > > Simplify things by instead doing the tag name check as part of > Variants.check(), at which point we can rely on inheritance > instead of overriding Variant.check(). > > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> Can bury the infosec turd on merge.
