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(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com