Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] qapi: Generalize struct member policy checking

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>]

On 10/29/21 16:01, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> On 10/28/21 12:25, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> The generated visitor functions call visit_deprecated_accept() and
>>> visit_deprecated() when visiting a struct member with special feature
>>> flag 'deprecated'.  This makes the feature flag visible to the actual
>>> visitors.  I want to make feature flag 'unstable' visible there as
>>> well, so I can add policy for it.
>>>
>>> To let me make it visible, replace these functions by
>>> visit_policy_reject() and visit_policy_skip(), which take the member's
>>> special features as an argument.  Note that the new functions have the
>>> opposite sense, i.e. the return value flips.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/qapi/visitor-impl.h   |  6 ++++--
>>>  include/qapi/visitor.h        | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>>  qapi/qapi-forward-visitor.c   | 16 +++++++++-------
>>>  qapi/qapi-visit-core.c        | 22 ++++++++++++----------
>>>  qapi/qobject-input-visitor.c  | 15 ++++++++++-----
>>>  qapi/qobject-output-visitor.c |  9 ++++++---
>>>  qapi/trace-events             |  4 ++--
>>>  scripts/qapi/visit.py         | 14 +++++++-------
>>>  8 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)

>>>      case COMPAT_POLICY_INPUT_CRASH:
>>
>> Clearer as:
>>
>>            abort();
>>        default:
>>            g_assert_not_reached();
> 
> Maybe, but making it so has nothing to do with this patch.  It could
> perhaps be done in PATCH 8, or in a followup patch.
> 
>> Otherwise,
>> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> 
> Okay to tack your R-by to the unmodified patch?

Sure.