On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:31:32 -0600
Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
Great! Thanks a lot.
