On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:07:29 -0500
Michael Roth <address@hidden> wrote:
+bool qmp_command_has_success_response(const char *name)
+{
+ QmpCommand *cmd;
+
+ QTAILQ_FOREACH(cmd, &qmp_commands, node) {
+ if (strcmp(cmd->name, name) == 0) {
+ return cmd->options != QCO_NO_SUCCESS_RESP;
cmd->options is a bitmask - it is feasible that we may add more QCO_NO_*
flags in the future, at which point inequality is NOT correct. Rather,
you want:
return !(cmd->options & QCO_NO_SUCCESS_RESP);
Good catch! IIRC I added cmd->options myself and didn't catch this...
+++ b/qga/commands.c
@@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ struct GuestAgentInfo *qmp_guest_info(Error **err)
cmd_info = g_malloc0(sizeof(GuestAgentCommandInfo));
cmd_info->name = g_strdup(*cmd_list);
cmd_info->enabled = qmp_command_is_enabled(cmd_info->name);
+ cmd_info->success_response =
+ qmp_command_has_success_response(cmd_info->name);
This feels wasteful. Why are we doing an O(n) lookup for BOTH
qmp_command_is_enabled AND qmp_command_has_success_response, in an O(n)
loop over command names? That's O(n^2) in the number of commands.
Better would be getting a list of QmpCommand* instead of a list of
char*, and looking directly in each object, for O(n) computation of the
results.
Agreed, modifying qmp_get_command_list to return a list of QmpCommand
would be nicer. Rather than looking directly at the fields though I
think we should just fix up qmp_command_is_enabled() and friends to
take a QmpCommand arg instead of a char*. We already have
qmp_find_command to map char*->QmpCommand to support any cases where
we rely on cmd names.
I agree and I thought the same thing when I reviewed the patch, but
I didn't mind as Mark is just using what's already there.