On 07/14/2014 12:12 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>>> Agree. Let's ditch nested structs and see whether there are any misuses
>>>> of c_var() left.
>>>
>>> This is an honest question: do we really want to drop nested struct support,
>>> wasn't it added by the block layer or am I just confused?
>>
>> We're talking about raw inline structs - there's only 3 impacted QAPI
>> typesMP commands (if I counted correctly), and they have nothing to do
>> with block layer complex structs. The idea is that we want to outlaw
>> 'foo':{...} implicit structs, and instead require 'foo':'type', where
>> 'type' was earlier defined with the {...} guts. The QMP wire format
>> would be unchanged; it is just a change to the QAPI template that the
>> generators read. Removing inline structs would also simplify the
>> generators. Then, with that gone, we are free to to repurpose
>> 'foo':{...} for default values of optional arguments. Here's a link to
>> some of the earlier conversation:
>>
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-05/msg00708.html
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-05/msg04268.html
>
> Right, this makes sense. Thanks for the URLs.
>
> Is there anyone planning on doing this? I don't think I'll have cycles
> anytime soon... I'd be willing to merge my fix if nobody steps up.I may take a stab at removing raw inline structs after 2.1 is released, if no one beats me to it. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
