On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 03:59:29PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>
I would write it as
qdict_put(*props, "vendor", qstring_from_str(val))
instead. It would make the property-setting code more greppable (and
easier to read IMO).
On the other hand, using featurestr as the key makes sense if the
trivial qdict_put() calls like this one are eventually going to be
unified into a single qdict_put(*props, featurestr, qstring_from_str(val))
generic fallback.
> ---
> target-i386/cpu.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c
> index 3ead1f4..084faeb 100644
> --- a/target-i386/cpu.c
> +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c
> @@ -1338,7 +1338,7 @@ static int cpu_x86_parse_featurestr(x86_def_t
> *x86_cpu_def, char *features,
> }
> x86_cpu_def->xlevel = numvalue;
> } else if (!strcmp(featurestr, "vendor")) {
> - pstrcpy(x86_cpu_def->vendor, sizeof(x86_cpu_def->vendor),
> val);
> + qdict_put(*props, featurestr, qstring_from_str(val));
> } else if (!strcmp(featurestr, "model_id")) {
> pstrcpy(x86_cpu_def->model_id, sizeof(x86_cpu_def->model_id),
> val);
> --
> 1.7.1
>
--
Eduardo
