Andreas Färber <andreas.faer...@web.de> writes: > Am 19.05.2011 um 16:18 schrieb Markus Armbruster: > >> Amit Shah <amit.s...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> On (Thu) 19 May 2011 [13:37:15], Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>> Old version looks like this in info qtree (last four lines): >>>> >>>> dev: virtconsole, id "" >>>> dev-prop: is_console = 1 >>>> dev-prop: nr = 0 >>>> dev-prop: chardev = <null> >>>> dev-prop: name = <null> >>>> dev-prop-int: id: 0 >>>> dev-prop-int: guest_connected: 1 >>>> dev-prop-int: host_connected: 0 >>>> dev-prop-int: throttled: 0 >>>> >>>> Indentation is off, and "dev-prop-int" suggests these are properties >>>> you can configure with -device, which isn't the case. The other >>>> buses' print_dev() callbacks don't do that. For instance, PCI's >>>> output looks like this: >>>> >>>> class Ethernet controller, addr 00:03.0, pci id 1af4:1000 >>>> (sub 1af4:0001) >>>> bar 0: i/o at 0xffffffffffffffff [0x1e] >>>> bar 1: mem at 0xffffffffffffffff [0xffe] >>>> bar 6: mem at 0xffffffffffffffff [0xfffe] >>>> >>>> Change virtser_bus_dev_print() to that style. Result: >>>> >>>> dev: virtconsole, id "" >>>> dev-prop: is_console = 1 >>>> dev-prop: nr = 0 >>>> dev-prop: chardev = <null> >>>> dev-prop: name = <null> >>>> port 0, guest on, host off, throttle off >>> >>> Here the original guest_connected and host_connected meant whether >>> the >>> endpoints were open. guest on/off, host on/off don't convey that >>> meaning. Can't think of a short version, can you? >> >> I chose on/off to stay consistent with how qdev shows bool properties >> (print_bit() in qdev-properties.c). May be misguided. Like you, I'm >> having difficulties coming up with a better version that is still >> consise. > > Erm, I'm not aware that my qdev bool patch got committed yet, so the > question of how to parse/print bool properties (on/off vs. yes/no) is > still undecided, no comments so far.
No, there is precedence: PROP_TYPE_BIT's parse_bit(), print_bit(). The fact that it's a bit within a uint32_t rather than bool is implementation detail that shouldn't matter at the -device / info qtree level. > It would be entirely possible to > let the author decide that on a case-by-case basis by using different > property type enums for the same 'bool' type. Possible, but is it wise?
