Am 14.04.2020 um 12:16 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
> Eric Blake <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On 4/9/20 10:30 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> has_help_option() uses its own parser. It's inconsistent with
> >> qemu_opts_parse(), as demonstrated by test-qemu-opts case
> >> /qemu-opts/has_help_option. Fix by reusing the common parser.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <[email protected]>
> >> @@ -165,26 +165,6 @@ void parse_option_size(const char *name, const char
> >> *value,
> >> *ret = size;
> >> }
> >> -bool has_help_option(const char *param)
> >> -{
> >> - const char *p = param;
> >> - bool result = false;
> >> -
> >> - while (*p && !result) {
> >> - char *value;
> >> -
> >> - p = get_opt_value(p, &value);
> >> - if (*p) {
> >> - p++;
> >> - }
> >> -
> >> - result = is_help_option(value);
> >
> > Old code: both 'help' and '?' are accepted.
> >
> >> +bool has_help_option(const char *params)
> >> +{
> >> + const char *p;
> >> + char *name, *value;
> >> + bool ret;
> >> +
> >> + for (p = params; *p;) {
> >> + p = get_opt_name_value(p, NULL, &name, &value);
> >> + ret = !strcmp(name, "help");
> >
> > New code: only 'help' is accepted. Is the loss of '?' intentional?
>
> No. Will fix, thanks!
Please also add some '?' test cases while you're at it.
Kevin
