On 08/03/2016 01:00 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:04:02 -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 08/03/2016 04:11 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
>> Prepare to extract more data by returning a array of structs rather than
>> just an array of thread ids. Additionally report fatal errors separately
>> from qemu not being able to produce data.
>> ---
>> src/qemu/qemu_monitor.c | 31 ++++++++++++-------
>> src/qemu/qemu_monitor.h | 6 ++++
>> src/qemu/qemu_monitor_json.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>> src/qemu/qemu_monitor_json.h | 2 +-
>> src/qemu/qemu_monitor_text.c | 37 +++++++++++------------
>> src/qemu/qemu_monitor_text.h | 2 +-
>> tests/qemumonitorjsontest.c | 31 ++++++++++++++-----
>> 7 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_monitor.c b/src/qemu/qemu_monitor.c
>> index 0011ceb..578b078 100644
>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_monitor.c
>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_monitor.c
>> @@ -1666,6 +1666,16 @@ qemuMonitorCPUInfoFree(qemuMonitorCPUInfoPtr cpus,
>> VIR_FREE(cpus);
>> }
>>
>> +void
>> +qemuMonitorQueryCpusFree(struct qemuMonitorQueryCpusEntry *entries,
>> + size_t nentries ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>> +{
>> + if (!entries)
>> + return;
>
> [1] Maybe this should be a 'int' parameter and a <= 0 check...
What?! That's a freeing function. That does not make any sense.
oh right - my eyes read nentries... and I even noted in the caller that
nentries is not used.... Anyway, I suppose part of me was trying to
forward think why you would add nentries and that passing a -2 or -1
here may not end quickly...
John