On 02/18/2016 09:43 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> There's no reason to do two malloc's for an alternate type visiting
>> a QAPI struct; let's just inline the struct directly as the C union
>> branch of the struct.
>>
>>
>> meanwhile, in qapi-visit.h, we trade the previous visit_type_FOO(obj)
>
> Meanwhile
>
>> (which allocates a pointer, handles a layer of {} from the JSON stream,
>> and visits the fields)
Maybe:
(which first calls visit_start_struct(v, name, obj, size, &err) to
allocate a pointer and handle a layer of {} from the JSON stream, then
visits the fields)
>> with an inline call to visit_type_FOO(NULL) (to
>> consume the {} without allocation) and a direct visit of the fields:
>
> I don't see a call to visit_type_FOO(NULL).
Whoops, wrong function name. I meant:
visit_start_struct(v, name, NULL, 0, &err).
^^^^
Especially useful if you take my earlier text suggestion to point out
the difference in the visit_start_struct() calls as being the
intentional so that we continue to consume {} but now opt out of a
second allocation.
>
> Suggest not to abbreviate argument lists, it's mildly confusing.
Sure. Are we still at a point that you could touch up the commit message
without a patch respin?
>
> Patch looks good.
>
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
