Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 08/24/2017 01:35 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 08/24/2017 03:45 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>> The lookup tables have a sentinel, no need to make callers pass their
>>>> size.
>>>>
>>>> Fun: the header has it in the wrong position. Good riddance.
>>>>
>
>>>> +++ b/include/qapi/util.h
>>>> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>>>> #define QAPI_UTIL_H
>>>>
>>>> int qapi_enum_parse(const char * const lookup[], const char *buf,
>>>> - int max, int def, Error **errp);
>>>> + int def, Error **errp);
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you meant by wrong position; were you thinking that
>>> lookup/max should be immediately adjacent (since max is a property of
>>> the lookup[] parameter), and sticking 'buf' in between the two is what
>>> meant 'max' was in the wrong position?
>>
>> Compare the declaration above with the definition below:
>>
>> diff --git a/qapi/qapi-util.c b/qapi/qapi-util.c
>> index 46eda7d..ee7594f 100644
>> --- a/qapi/qapi-util.c
>> +++ b/qapi/qapi-util.c
>> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
>> #include "qapi/util.h"
>>
>> int qapi_enum_parse(const char * const lookup[], const char *buf,
>> - int max, int def, Error **errp)
>> + int def, Error **errp)
>> {
>> int i;
>>
>> Declaration has max before def, definition has it the other way round.
>
> Huh? On current master (commit 248b2373), the two look like they match
> to me:
>
> $ git grep -A1 qapi_enum_parse'.*const look'
> include/qapi/util.h:int qapi_enum_parse(const char * const lookup[],
> const char *buf,
> include/qapi/util.h- int max, int def, Error **errp);
> --
> qapi/qapi-util.c:int qapi_enum_parse(const char * const lookup[], const
> char *buf,
> qapi/qapi-util.c- int max, int def, Error **errp)
>
>
>>
>> Such errors are one reason I prefer to have documentation next to
>> definitions, which are authoritative, rather than declarations, which
>> may or may not match the definition.
>>
>>> The change itself is reasonable, even if the commit message needs a
>>> tweak to answer my question.
>>
>> Care to suggest a wording?
>
> At this point, I find the claim to be bogus, so I suggest you delete the
> 'Fun:' paragraph.
Sure.
>>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
>>
>> Thanks!
