Amos Kong <ak...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 07:19:39PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > On 06/27/2013 08:22 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> Commit 1da48c6 called the new member "memory" after commit 3949e59
>> >> standardized "ringbuf". Rename for consistency.
>> >>
>> >> However, member name "memory" is visible in QMP since 1.5. It's
>> >> undocumented just like the driver name. Keep it working anyway.
>> >>
>> >> Cc: qemu-sta...@nongnu.org
>> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> qapi-schema.json | 6 ++++--
>> >> qemu-char.c | 11 ++++++-----
>> >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/qapi-schema.json b/qapi-schema.json
>> >> index 6445da6..b3df8a5 100644
>> >> --- a/qapi-schema.json
>> >> +++ b/qapi-schema.json
>> >> @@ -3277,9 +3277,9 @@
>> >> ##
>> >> # @ChardevRingbuf:
>> >> #
>> >> -# Configuration info for memory chardevs
>> >> +# Configuration info for ring buffer chardevs.
>> >> #
>> >> -# @size: #optional Ringbuffer size, must be power of two, default is
>> >> 65536
>> >> +# @size: #optional ring buffer size, must be power of two, default is
>> >> 65536
>> >> #
>> >> # Since: 1.5
>> >> ##
>> >> @@ -3310,6 +3310,8 @@
>> >> 'spicevmc' :
>> >> 'ChardevSpiceChannel',
>> >> 'spiceport' : 'ChardevSpicePort',
>> >> 'vc' : 'ChardevVC',
>> >> + 'ringbuf': 'ChardevRingbuf',
>> >> + # next one is just for
>> >> compatibility
>> >> 'memory' : 'ChardevRingbuf' } }
>> >
>> > Does JSON allow comments in the middle of content? Is this going to
>> > screw up Amos' work on introspection? You may need to instead have a
>> > comment before the open '{' stating that 'memory' is an alias within the
>> > union for back-compat reasons.
>
> I didn't parse the json file by myself. I just used the parsed
> dictionary. So it only needs to make qapi.py happy.
>
>> RFC 4627 doesn't do comments at all.
>>
>> This file is parsed by scripts/qapi.py, which as far as I can tell
>> ignores lines starting with '#' anywhere in the input.
>
> Not anywhere, only start with '#'
Isn't that what I said?
> | def parse_schema(fp):
> | exprs = []
> | raw_exprs = []
> | expr = ''
> | expr_eval = None
> |
> | for line in fp:
> | if line.startswith('#') or line == '\n':
>
> # ignores lines starting with '#' anywhere
> if line.strip().startswith('#')
>
> | continue
> |
>
>
> So we should not add this kind of comment for back-compat.
Now I'm confused. My patch adds a line that starts with '#'.
parse_schema() ignores it. Works as designed. Why do you think we
shouldn't do that?
