On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 04:56:51PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:51:45PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > There was no QMP capabilities defined. Define the first "oob" as
> > capability to allow out-of-band messages.
> >
> > Also, touch up qmp-test.c to test the new bits.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > monitor.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > qapi-schema.json | 13 +++++++++++++
> > tests/qmp-test.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
> > index e8f5a586e4..bad6ee8dd1 100644
> > --- a/monitor.c
> > +++ b/monitor.c
> > @@ -3944,12 +3944,23 @@ void monitor_resume(Monitor *mon)
> >
> > static QObject *get_qmp_greeting(void)
> > {
> > + QDict *result = qdict_new(), *qmp = qdict_new();
> > + QList *cap_list = qlist_new();
> > QObject *ver = NULL;
> > + QMPCapability cap;
> > +
> > + qdict_put(result, "QMP", qmp);
> >
> > qmp_marshal_query_version(NULL, &ver, NULL);
> > + qdict_put_obj(qmp, "version", ver);
> > +
> > + for (cap = 0; cap < QMP_CAPABILITY__MAX; cap++) {
> > + qlist_append(cap_list, qstring_from_str(
> > + QMPCapability_str(cap)));
> > + }
> > + qdict_put(qmp, "capabilities", cap_list);
> >
> > - return qobject_from_jsonf("{'QMP': {'version': %p, 'capabilities':
> > []}}",
> > - ver);
> > + return QOBJECT(result);
> > }
>
> Why did you replace qobject_from_jsonf() with manual qdict_*() calls?
>
> I was expecting this (it's shorter and easier to read):
>
> static QObject *get_qmp_greeting(void)
> {
> QList *cap_list = qlist_new();
> QObject *ver = NULL;
> QMPCapability cap;
>
> qmp_marshal_query_version(NULL, &ver, NULL);
>
> for (cap = 0; cap < QMP_CAPABILITY__MAX; cap++) {
> qlist_append(cap_list, qstring_from_str(
> QMPCapability_str(cap)));
> }
>
> return qobject_from_jsonf("{'QMP': {'version': %p, 'capabilities':
> %p}}",
> ver, cap);
(I believe you mean s/cap/cap_list/ here?)
> }
Oh I just didn't notice that "%p" magic at all... :(
I think for me it's fine in either way. Frankly speaking creating the
objects explicitly would be even easier to understand for me instead
of using a mixture of two ways... But just let me know if you want me
to do it your way. I can switch. Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
