[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH not-for-merge 2/5] qom: Make "info qom-tree" show children so
From: |
Markus Armbruster |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH not-for-merge 2/5] qom: Make "info qom-tree" show children sorted |
Date: |
Tue, 19 May 2020 08:43:44 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) |
Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
> On 5/18/20 12:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> "info qom-tree" prints children in unstable order. This is a pain
>> when diffing output for different versions to find change. Print it
>> sorted.
>
> Yes, this does seem reasonable to include even without the rest of the
> series.
Noted.
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> qom/qom-hmp-cmds.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/qom/qom-hmp-cmds.c b/qom/qom-hmp-cmds.c
>> index 4a61ee1b8c..cf0af8f6b5 100644
>> --- a/qom/qom-hmp-cmds.c
>> +++ b/qom/qom-hmp-cmds.c
>> @@ -78,6 +78,35 @@ static int print_qom_composition_child(Object *obj, void
>> *opaque)
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +static int qom_composition_compare(const void *a, const void *b,
>> void *ignore)
>> +{
>> + Object *obja = (void *)a, *objb = (void *)b;
>
> Casting away const...
>
>> + const char *namea, *nameb;
>> +
>> + if (obja == object_get_root()) {
>> + namea = g_strdup("");
>> + } else {
>> + namea = object_get_canonical_path_component(obja);
>
> ...should we instead improve object_get_canonical_path_component to
> work with 'const Object *'?
Go right ahead :)
I need to sit on my hands to have a chance getting my task queue back
under control.
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (objb == object_get_root()) {
>> + nameb = g_strdup("");
>> + } else {
>> + nameb = object_get_canonical_path_component(objb);
>> + }
>> +
>> +
>> + return strcmp(namea, nameb);
>
> Why the two blank lines? This leaks namea and/or nameb if either
> object is the object root. Should you instead use g_strcmp0 here,
> with namea/b set to NULL instead of g_strdup("") above?
My not-for-merge proves prudent ;)
>> @@ -105,7 +134,16 @@ static void print_qom_composition(Monitor *mon, Object
>> *obj, int indent)
>> monitor_printf(mon, "%*s/%s (%s)\n", indent, "", name,
>> object_get_typename(obj));
>> g_free(name);
>> - object_child_foreach(obj, print_qom_composition_child, &s);
>> +
>> + GQueue children;
>> + Object *child;
>
> Mid-function declarations - I assume you'd clean this up if we want
> this for real?
Yes. I prioritized diff over maintainability, because not-for-merge.
>> + g_queue_init(&children);
>> + object_child_foreach(obj, insert_qom_composition_child, &children);
>> + while ((child = g_queue_pop_head(&children))) {
>> + print_qom_composition(mon, child, indent + 2);
>> + }
>> + (void)s;
>> + (void)print_qom_composition_child;
>
> Also, this looks like leftover debugger aids?
Shut up the compiler so I don't have to remove code. Shorter diff,
not-for-merge.
>> }
>> void hmp_info_qom_tree(Monitor *mon, const QDict *dict)
>>
Thanks!
- [PATCH not-for-merge 0/5] Instrumentation for "Fixes around device realization", Markus Armbruster, 2020/05/18
- [PATCH not-for-merge 1/5] qom: Instrument to detect missed realize, Markus Armbruster, 2020/05/18
- [PATCH not-for-merge 4/5] qdev: Instrument to detect missed QOM parenting, Markus Armbruster, 2020/05/18
- [PATCH not-for-merge 3/5] qdev: Make "info qtree" show child devices sorted by QOM path, Markus Armbruster, 2020/05/18
- [PATCH not-for-merge 2/5] qom: Make "info qom-tree" show children sorted, Markus Armbruster, 2020/05/18
- [PATCH not-for-merge 5/5] qdev: Instrument to detect bus mismatch, Markus Armbruster, 2020/05/18
- Re: [PATCH not-for-merge 0/5] Instrumentation for "Fixes around device realization", no-reply, 2020/05/18
- Re: [PATCH not-for-merge 0/5] Instrumentation for "Fixes around device realization", no-reply, 2020/05/18
- Re: [PATCH not-for-merge 0/5] Instrumentation for "Fixes around device realization", no-reply, 2020/05/18
- Re: [PATCH not-for-merge 0/5] Instrumentation for "Fixes around device realization", Mark Cave-Ayland, 2020/05/18
- Re: [PATCH not-for-merge 0/5] Instrumentation for "Fixes around device realization", Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/05/20