On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:28:27 +0200
Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote:
> Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> writes:
> >
> >> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com>
> >>
> >> This enables command line completion inside option strings. A list of
> >> expected key names and their completion type can be appended to the 'O'
> >> inside parentheses ('O(key:type,...)'). The first use case is block
> >> device completion for the 'drive' option of 'device_add'.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com>
> >> ---
> >> monitor.c | 68
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >> qemu-monitor.hx | 2 +-
> >> 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
> >> index c1006b4..3e0d862 100644
> >> --- a/monitor.c
> >> +++ b/monitor.c
> >> @@ -68,6 +68,9 @@
> >> * 'O' option string of the form NAME=VALUE,...
> >> * parsed according to QemuOptsList given by its name
> >> * Example: 'device:O' uses qemu_device_opts.
> >> + * Command completion for specific keys can be requested via
> >> + * appending '(NAME:TYPE,...)' with 'F', 'B' as type.
> >> + * Example: 'device:O(bus:Q)' to expand 'bus=...' as qtree
> >> path.
> >> * Restriction: only lists with empty desc are supported
> >> * TODO lift the restriction
> >> * 'i' 32 bit integer
> >
> > Ugh.
> >
> > Replacement of args_type by a proper data structure is long overdue. We
> > keep piling features into that poor, hapless string.
> >
> > Information on how to complete QemuOptsList options arguably belongs
> > into the option description, i.e. QemuOptDesc.
>
> For sure, that would be better. I just wonder how much of it should be
> stuffed into this series. I guess I will drop this part for now, just
> focusing on what device_show makes direct use of. Same for separate args
> for HMP and QMP.
IIRC, the separate args idea use case was to allow commands like device_del
to have an ID argument and a path argument, right? If so, I think it doesn't
matter anymore as we have agreed on having a device argument which would
accept both, even under QMP, right Markus?
By the way, if you send patches 09/23, 10/23, 15/23, (maybe) 16/23, 21/23
and 22/23 in a different series, I could try pushing them in my next
pull request.
