Eric Blake <[email protected]> writes:
> On 12/03/2015 10:13 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/03/2015 09:37 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>> prop_get_fdt() misuses the visitor API: when fdt is null, it doesn't
>>>> visit anything. object_property_get_qobject() happily
>>>> object_property_get_qobject(). Amazingly, the latter survives the
>>>
>>> Something got lost or otherwise corrupted in that sentence. Were you
>>> trying to say one function happily calls another? If so, which of the
>>> two "object_property_get_qobject()" strings should be changed, to what?
>>
>> No idea what happened. Correction: insert "calls" after "happily":
>>
>> prop_get_fdt() misuses the visitor API: when fdt is null, it doesn't
>> visit anything. object_property_get_qobject() happily calls
>> object_property_get_qobject().
>>
> That still reads "A() happily calls A()" - are we talking about
> recursion here? I still wonder if you meant a second function name,
> and/or mention of the fact that we are calling a function with NULL
> rather than a QObject?
I'm incapable of proof-reading anything I wrote myself %-}
prop_get_fdt() misuses the visitor API: when fdt is null, it doesn't
visit anything. object_property_get_qobject() happily calls
qmp_output_get_qobject() then. Amazingly, the latter survives the
misuse. Turns out we've papered over it long before prop_get_fdt()
existed, in commit 1d10b44.
