Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:09:53 +0100
Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> writes:
Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com>
---
monitor.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
index 47f794d..3d33bd8 100644
--- a/monitor.c
+++ b/monitor.c
@@ -514,10 +514,30 @@ static void do_info_version(Monitor *mon, QObject
**ret_data)
QEMU_VERSION, QEMU_PKGVERSION);
}
-static void do_info_name(Monitor *mon)
+static void do_info_name_print(Monitor *mon, const QObject *data)
{
- if (qemu_name)
- monitor_printf(mon, "%s\n", qemu_name);
+ const char *str;
+
+ str = qdict_get_str(qobject_to_qdict(data), "name");
+ if (strlen(str) > 0) {
+ monitor_printf(mon, "%s\n", str);
+ }
+}
+
+/**
+ * do_info_name(): Show VM name
+ *
+ * Return a QDict with the following information:
+ *
+ * - "name": VM's name. If the VM has no name, the string will be empty
So you can't distinguish name "" from unnamed. Do we care?
I don't think so, but if we do the best way to deal with the fact
that qemu_name can be NULL would be to return null, like:
{ "name": null }
But we don't support json-null yet... There are other two
ways to solve this, but they seem workarounds for not supporting
null: return an empty dict or return { "name": false }.
I'd prefer an empty dict. I actually prefer that over null.
--
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
