| Message ID | 1429975686-19494-1-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. > There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls > followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by > calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> > --- > qjson.c | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some QAPI/QMP tree. Regards, Andreas
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > > The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. > > There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls > > followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by > > calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). > > Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> > > --- > > qjson.c | 10 +++++----- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> > > Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some > QAPI/QMP tree. The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through the migration tree? Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have exactly the same name?
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:23:20 -0300 Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > > Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > > > The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. > > > There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls > > > followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by > > > calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). > > > > Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. Everywhere? You mean, in other places? In this case someone has to post a different patch. > I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it. > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > qjson.c | 10 +++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> > > > > Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some > > QAPI/QMP tree. > > The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through > the migration tree? It could be, but I can take it if nobody does. > Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have > exactly the same name? Not sure I got it, which writers?
Am 29.04.2015 um 14:38 schrieb Luiz Capitulino: > On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:23:20 -0300 > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: >>>> The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. >>>> There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls >>>> followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by >>>> calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). >>> >>> Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. > > Everywhere? You mean, in other places? No, I count 3x in commit message including subject. Andreas > In this case someone has to > post a different patch. > >> I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> qjson.c | 10 +++++----- >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> >>> >>> Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some >>> QAPI/QMP tree. >> >> The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through >> the migration tree? > > It could be, but I can take it if nobody does. > >> Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have >> exactly the same name? > > Not sure I got it, which writers? >
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:46:38 +0200 Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote: > Am 29.04.2015 um 14:38 schrieb Luiz Capitulino: > > On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:23:20 -0300 > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > >>> Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > >>>> The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. > >>>> There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls > >>>> followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by > >>>> calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). > >>> > >>> Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. > > > > Everywhere? You mean, in other places? > > No, I count 3x in commit message including subject. Ah, the problem is the *commit* message. Okay... > > Andreas > > > In this case someone has to > > post a different patch. > > > >> I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> qjson.c | 10 +++++----- > >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> > >>> > >>> Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some > >>> QAPI/QMP tree. > >> > >> The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through > >> the migration tree? > > > > It could be, but I can take it if nobody does. > > > >> Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have > >> exactly the same name? > > > > Not sure I got it, which writers? > > > >
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:38:02AM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:23:20 -0300 > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > > > Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > > > > The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. > > > > There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls > > > > followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by > > > > calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). > > > > > > Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. > > Everywhere? You mean, in other places? In this case someone has to > post a different patch. Just in the commit message. > > > I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > > > qjson.c | 10 +++++----- > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> > > > > > > Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some > > > QAPI/QMP tree. > > > > The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through > > the migration tree? > > It could be, but I can take it if nobody does. Thanks! > > > Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have > > exactly the same name? > > Not sure I got it, which writers? qjson.c and qobject/qjson.c:to_json().
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:55:48 -0300 Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have > > > exactly the same name? > > > > Not sure I got it, which writers? > > qjson.c and qobject/qjson.c:to_json(). Hmm, yeah, you're right.
On 27/04/2015 19:23, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have > exactly the same name? qobject/qjson.c could use qjson.c... but then qjson.c probably should be changed 1) to not use QOM 2) to use GString instead of QString, just like most other places that use mutable QStrings. Paolo
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 09:18:27PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 27/04/2015 19:23, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have > > exactly the same name? > > qobject/qjson.c could use qjson.c... but then qjson.c probably should be > changed 1) to not use QOM 2) to use GString instead of QString, just > like most other places that use mutable QStrings. 3) to support a larger subset of JSON. It doesn't even escape string contents.
Quoting Eduardo Habkost (2015-04-29 07:55:48) > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:38:02AM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:23:20 -0300 > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > > > > Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > > > > > The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. > > > > > There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls > > > > > followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by > > > > > calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). > > > > > > > > Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. > > > > Everywhere? You mean, in other places? In this case someone has to > > post a different patch. > > Just in the commit message. > > > > > > I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > qjson.c | 10 +++++----- > > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> > > > > > > > > Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some > > > > QAPI/QMP tree. > > > > > > The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through > > > the migration tree? > > > > It could be, but I can take it if nobody does. > > Thanks! > > > > > > Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have > > > exactly the same name? > > > > Not sure I got it, which writers? > > qjson.c and qobject/qjson.c:to_json(). I'm guessing it's to avoid the need to build up a QObject throughout the migration code, as opposed to just serializing metadata/vmstate fields directly to string. Does make me wonder though why we don't just use visit_type_{int,etc}() interfaces to build up the QObject through a QMPOutputVisitor, then feed the resulting QObject through the existing qobject/qjson.c code. > > -- > Eduardo >
Quoting Michael Roth (2015-05-01 11:19:05) > Quoting Eduardo Habkost (2015-04-29 07:55:48) > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:38:02AM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:23:20 -0300 > > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > > > > > Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > > > > > > The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. > > > > > > There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls > > > > > > followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by > > > > > > calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). > > > > > > > > > > Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. > > > > > > Everywhere? You mean, in other places? In this case someone has to > > > post a different patch. > > > > Just in the commit message. > > > > > > > > > I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > qjson.c | 10 +++++----- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> > > > > > > > > > > Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some > > > > > QAPI/QMP tree. > > > > > > > > The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through > > > > the migration tree? > > > > > > It could be, but I can take it if nobody does. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have > > > > exactly the same name? > > > > > > Not sure I got it, which writers? > > > > qjson.c and qobject/qjson.c:to_json(). > > I'm guessing it's to avoid the need to build up a QObject throughout > the migration code, as opposed to just serializing metadata/vmstate > fields directly to string. > > Does make me wonder though why we don't just use visit_type_{int,etc}() > interfaces to build up the QObject through a QMPOutputVisitor, then feed > the resulting QObject through the existing qobject/qjson.c code. I guess that would affect downtime. Don't imagine it would by much though. A JSONOutputVisitor that simply wraps JSONMessageParser and avoids the QObject intermediate might be another option. > > > > > -- > > Eduardo > >
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:28:06 -0300 Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. > There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls > followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by > calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> Applied to the qmp branch, thanks. > --- > qjson.c | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/qjson.c b/qjson.c > index 0cda269..e478802 100644 > --- a/qjson.c > +++ b/qjson.c > @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ struct QJSON { > bool omit_comma; > }; > > +#define QJSON(obj) OBJECT_CHECK(QJSON, (obj), TYPE_QJSON) > + > static void json_emit_element(QJSON *json, const char *name) > { > /* Check whether we need to print a , before an element */ > @@ -87,7 +89,7 @@ const char *qjson_get_str(QJSON *json) > > QJSON *qjson_new(void) > { > - QJSON *json = (QJSON *)object_new(TYPE_QJSON); > + QJSON *json = QJSON(object_new(TYPE_QJSON)); > return json; > } > > @@ -98,8 +100,7 @@ void qjson_finish(QJSON *json) > > static void qjson_initfn(Object *obj) > { > - QJSON *json = (QJSON *)object_dynamic_cast(obj, TYPE_QJSON); > - assert(json); > + QJSON *json = QJSON(obj); > > json->str = qstring_from_str("{ "); > json->omit_comma = true; > @@ -107,9 +108,8 @@ static void qjson_initfn(Object *obj) > > static void qjson_finalizefn(Object *obj) > { > - QJSON *json = (QJSON *)object_dynamic_cast(obj, TYPE_QJSON); > + QJSON *json = QJSON(obj); > > - assert(json); > qobject_decref(QOBJECT(json->str)); > } >
On 01.05.15 18:23, Michael Roth wrote: > Quoting Michael Roth (2015-05-01 11:19:05) >> Quoting Eduardo Habkost (2015-04-29 07:55:48) >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:38:02AM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: >>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:23:20 -0300 >>>> Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: >>>>>> Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: >>>>>>> The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. >>>>>>> There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls >>>>>>> followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by >>>>>>> calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). >>>>>> >>>>>> Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. >>>> >>>> Everywhere? You mean, in other places? In this case someone has to >>>> post a different patch. >>> >>> Just in the commit message. >>> >>>> >>>>> I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> qjson.c | 10 +++++----- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some >>>>>> QAPI/QMP tree. >>>>> >>>>> The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through >>>>> the migration tree? >>>> >>>> It could be, but I can take it if nobody does. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>>> >>>>> Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have >>>>> exactly the same name? >>>> >>>> Not sure I got it, which writers? >>> >>> qjson.c and qobject/qjson.c:to_json(). >> >> I'm guessing it's to avoid the need to build up a QObject throughout >> the migration code, as opposed to just serializing metadata/vmstate >> fields directly to string. >> >> Does make me wonder though why we don't just use visit_type_{int,etc}() >> interfaces to build up the QObject through a QMPOutputVisitor, then feed >> the resulting QObject through the existing qobject/qjson.c code. > > I guess that would affect downtime. Don't imagine it would by much > though. A JSONOutputVisitor that simply wraps JSONMessageParser > and avoids the QObject intermediate might be another option. Well, there were a number of reasons why I didn't want to use the QObject json writer. The biggest one is complexity. We're really trying to do something incredibly trivial, namely writing json string data continuously. Allocating all that memory (potentially running oom) didn't seem incredibly appealing to me. Alex
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: >> > The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. >> > There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls >> > followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by >> > calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). >> >> Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. > > I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it. > >> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> >> > --- >> > qjson.c | 10 +++++----- >> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> >> >> Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some >> QAPI/QMP tree. > > The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through > the migration tree? I will take it, but I trust your reviews-by O:-) > > Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have > exactly the same name? Alex? I guess alex have this implementation when he did the code long ago? Later, Juan.
On Tue, 05 May 2015 14:43:19 +0200 Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> wrote: > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > >> Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > >> > The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. > >> > There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls > >> > followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by > >> > calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). > >> > >> Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. > > > > I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it. > > > >> > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> > >> > --- > >> > qjson.c | 10 +++++----- > >> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> > >> > >> Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some > >> QAPI/QMP tree. > > > > The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through > > the migration tree? > > > I will take it, but I trust your reviews-by O:-) I've already applied this one to the QMP tree. > > > > > Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have > > exactly the same name? > > Alex? I guess alex have this implementation when he did the code long > ago? > > Later, Juan. >
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, 05 May 2015 14:43:19 +0200 > Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 07:05:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: >> >> Am 25.04.2015 um 17:28 schrieb Eduardo Habkost: >> >> > The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. >> >> > There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls >> >> > followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by >> >> > calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). >> >> >> >> Suggest s/OBJECT_CHECK/OBJECT_CHECK()/g everywhere for clarity. >> > >> > I assume it can be fixed during commit by whoever is going to queue it. >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> >> >> > --- >> >> > qjson.c | 10 +++++----- >> >> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> >> >> >> >> Wasn't aware QJSON is using QOM - assuming this will go through some >> >> QAPI/QMP tree. >> > >> > The only user of qjson.c right now is migration code. Should it go through >> > the migration tree? >> >> >> I will take it, but I trust your reviews-by O:-) > > I've already applied this one to the QMP tree. I saw it later on the thread, I was about to say that all for you O:-) > >> >> > >> > Also, why do we have two JSON writers in QEMU? And why do they have >> > exactly the same name? >> >> Alex? I guess alex have this implementation when he did the code long >> ago? >> >> Later, Juan. >>
diff --git a/qjson.c b/qjson.c index 0cda269..e478802 100644 --- a/qjson.c +++ b/qjson.c @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ struct QJSON { bool omit_comma; }; +#define QJSON(obj) OBJECT_CHECK(QJSON, (obj), TYPE_QJSON) + static void json_emit_element(QJSON *json, const char *name) { /* Check whether we need to print a , before an element */ @@ -87,7 +89,7 @@ const char *qjson_get_str(QJSON *json) QJSON *qjson_new(void) { - QJSON *json = (QJSON *)object_new(TYPE_QJSON); + QJSON *json = QJSON(object_new(TYPE_QJSON)); return json; } @@ -98,8 +100,7 @@ void qjson_finish(QJSON *json) static void qjson_initfn(Object *obj) { - QJSON *json = (QJSON *)object_dynamic_cast(obj, TYPE_QJSON); - assert(json); + QJSON *json = QJSON(obj); json->str = qstring_from_str("{ "); json->omit_comma = true; @@ -107,9 +108,8 @@ static void qjson_initfn(Object *obj) static void qjson_finalizefn(Object *obj) { - QJSON *json = (QJSON *)object_dynamic_cast(obj, TYPE_QJSON); + QJSON *json = QJSON(obj); - assert(json); qobject_decref(QOBJECT(json->str)); }
The QJSON code used casts to (QJSON*) directly, instead of OBJECT_CHECK. There were even some functions using object_dynamic_cast() calls followed by assert(), which is exactly what OBJECT_CHECK does (by calling object_dynamic_cast_assert()). Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> --- qjson.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)