On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 08:53:19PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 7:49 PM Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:42:47PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:42 AM Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Extract the QNum value comparison logic to a function that takes > > > > QNumValue* as argument. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > > > include/qapi/qmp/qnum.h | 1 + > > > > qobject/qnum.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++---------- > > > > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/qapi/qmp/qnum.h b/include/qapi/qmp/qnum.h > > > > index 62fbdfda68..0327ecd0f0 100644 > > > > --- a/include/qapi/qmp/qnum.h > > > > +++ b/include/qapi/qmp/qnum.h > > > > @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ double qnum_get_double(const QNum *qn); > > > > > > > > char *qnum_to_string(QNum *qn); > > > > > > > > +bool qnum_value_is_equal(const QNumValue *num_x, const QNumValue > > *num_y); > > > > bool qnum_is_equal(const QObject *x, const QObject *y); > > > > void qnum_destroy_obj(QObject *obj); > > > > > > > > diff --git a/qobject/qnum.c b/qobject/qnum.c > > > > index f80d4efd76..6a0f948b16 100644 > > > > --- a/qobject/qnum.c > > > > +++ b/qobject/qnum.c > > > > @@ -207,9 +207,9 @@ char *qnum_to_string(QNum *qn) > > > > } > > > > > > > > /** > > > > - * qnum_is_equal(): Test whether the two QNums are equal > > > > - * @x: QNum object > > > > - * @y: QNum object > > > > + * qnum_value_is_equal(): Test whether two QNumValues are equal > > > > + * @num_x: QNum value > > > > + * @num_y: QNum value > > > > > > > > > > val_x: a QNumValue ? > > > > Do you mean: > > @num_x: a QNumValue > > > ? > > > > I was not planning to rename the existing num_x/num_y variables. > > > > > Not renaming because that would make some churn? But this is already quite > confusing, so it's better to use "val" for QNumVal and "num" for QNum I > guess. > > If you don't want to rename it in the code, may I suggest doing it at the > declaration side? Not sure it's a better idea.
Yeah, I was not renaming them just to avoid churn. However, I'm already replacing `qn` variables with `qv` at patch 3/8. Replacing num_x/num_y with val_x/val_y at qnum_is_equal() (at patch 3/8 as well) wouldn't hurt too much. -- Eduardo
