Kaitlin Rupert wrote:
Dan Smith wrote:
KR> Yes, since modify args. This is the new arg element that will KR> eventually be returned.
Er, the rest of the function only seems to call CMAddArg(*args, ...), which doesn't necessitate a double pointer. Unless I missed something like: *args = CMNewArgs(...);
then I think you're fine.
KR> However, based on the suggestion above, I think things can be KR> reworked so that we won't need the double-pointer.
Even better :)
Hmm - I didn't end up fixing this. The call is:
+static int parse_eo_param(CMPIArgs **args, + const CMPIBroker *broker, + CMPIData data, + CMPIType type, + const char *arg_name, + const char *ns, + CMPIStatus *s) +{
parse_eo_param() updates the args list using CMAddArg(). parse_eo_param() is called by validate_arg_type(). validate_arg_type() gets called on every arg in the original arg list.
So, to remove the double pointer, you'd either need to pass the value up from parse_eo_param() to validate_arg_type() and then up again, or you can just pass the arg list down and modify it as you go.
I took a look at passing the value up, but dealing with a CMPIValue arg didn't seem as clean. I'm definitely open to suggestions here though, because I think this is awkward as it is.
Ah, my mistake on the double-pointer here. For some reason, I was thinking we'd need the double-pointer so that we could update the arg list. But we only need to update what the pointer points to, so you're right - we can remove the double pointer. I'll send out an update. -- Kaitlin Rupert IBM Linux Technology Center kaitlin@linux.vnet.ibm.com