From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41496)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1a4Y6a-0002D7-D4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 12:55:45 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1a4Y6W-0006iT-6B
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 12:55:44 -0500
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
References: <1449160660-3777-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
	<1449160660-3777-3-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
	<566073CE.8090601@redhat.com> <87r3j3jw0l.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<56607C3E.8000100@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 18:55:36 +0100
In-Reply-To: <56607C3E.8000100@redhat.com> (Eric Blake's message of "Thu, 3
	Dec 2015 10:30:38 -0700")
Message-ID: <87r3j3fmcn.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.5 2/3] spapr_drc: Change value of
	property "fdt" from null back to {}
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, agraf@suse.de, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au

Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> writes:

> On 12/03/2015 10:13 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 12/03/2015 09:37 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>> prop_get_fdt() misuses the visitor API: when fdt is null, it doesn't
>>>> visit anything.  object_property_get_qobject() happily
>>>> object_property_get_qobject().  Amazingly, the latter survives the
>>>
>>> Something got lost or otherwise corrupted in that sentence.  Were you
>>> trying to say one function happily calls another?  If so, which of the
>>> two "object_property_get_qobject()" strings should be changed, to what?
>> 
>> No idea what happened.  Correction: insert "calls" after "happily":
>> 
>>     prop_get_fdt() misuses the visitor API: when fdt is null, it doesn't
>>     visit anything.  object_property_get_qobject() happily calls
>>     object_property_get_qobject().
>>
> That still reads "A() happily calls A()" - are we talking about
> recursion here?  I still wonder if you meant a second function name,
> and/or mention of the fact that we are calling a function with NULL
> rather than a QObject?

I'm incapable of proof-reading anything I wrote myself %-}

    prop_get_fdt() misuses the visitor API: when fdt is null, it doesn't
    visit anything.  object_property_get_qobject() happily calls
    qmp_output_get_qobject() then.  Amazingly, the latter survives the
    misuse.  Turns out we've papered over it long before prop_get_fdt()
    existed, in commit 1d10b44.