Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd(a)redhat.com> writes:
On 10/25/21 07:25, 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(a)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(-)
> diff --git a/qapi/qobject-input-visitor.c b/qapi/qobject-input-visitor.c
> index 71b24a4429..fda485614b 100644
> --- a/qapi/qobject-input-visitor.c
> +++ b/qapi/qobject-input-visitor.c
> @@ -662,16 +662,21 @@ static void qobject_input_optional(Visitor *v, const char
*name, bool *present)
> *present = true;
> }
>
> -static bool qobject_input_deprecated_accept(Visitor *v, const char *name,
> - Error **errp)
> +static bool qobject_input_policy_reject(Visitor *v, const char *name,
> + unsigned special_features,
> + Error **errp)
> {
> + if (!(special_features && 1u << QAPI_DEPRECATED)) {
Unreachable =) Proof than extract() is safer :P
Good eyes, thank you!
I actually like extract & desposit macros when the width is greater than
one. Then, the longhand C code is illegible anyway, and having to
remember what the macros mean is no worse.
For width 1 it feels like a wash. Universal use of the macros could
build familiarity and thus tip the balance.
I count more than a thousand instances of '& (1 <<'.
I wasn't even aware the macros existed in QEMU[*].
> + return false;
> + }
[*] I may well have seen them before, but my memory is limited and
lossy.