Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] libqtest: add qmp_device_del()

[Eric Blake]

On 10/02/2017 12:25 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Peter Xu <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> Device deletion is tricky since we'll get both a response and an event,
>> while the order of arrival may vary.  Provide a helper to handle this
>> complexity.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  tests/libqtest.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  tests/libqtest.h |  8 ++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 56 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/libqtest.c b/tests/libqtest.c
>> index b9a1f18..a34d8c4 100644
>> --- a/tests/libqtest.c
>> +++ b/tests/libqtest.c
>> @@ -925,6 +925,54 @@ QDict *qmp(const char *fmt, ...)
>>      return response;
>>  }
>>  
>> +void qmp_device_del(const char *id)

>> +
>> +    response2 = qmp("");
>> +    g_assert(response2);
>> +    g_assert(!qdict_haskey(response2, "error"));
> 
> qmp_receive() would be cleaner than qmp("").
> 
>> +
>> +    if (qdict_haskey(response1, "event")) {
>> +        event = response1;
>> +    } else if (qdict_haskey(response2, "event")) {
>> +        event = response2;
>> +    }
>> +    g_assert(event);
>> +    g_assert(!strcmp(qdict_get_str(event, "event"), "DEVICE_DELETED"));
>> +
>> +    QDECREF(response1);
>> +    QDECREF(response2);
>> +}
>> +
> 
> Uh, this looks similar to existing qtest_qmp_device_del().  Do we need both?

In fact, if I'm reading correctly, this is an early version, which was
retitled into commit acd80015 adding qtest_qmp_device_del().

At any rate, when I post my respin of my libqtest cleanups, I have the
qmp("") slated to be fixed.

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature