Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] qapi: allow unions to contain further unions

[Markus Armbruster]

Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes:

> Currently it is not possible for a union type to contain a
> further union as one (or more) of its branches. This relaxes
> that restriction and adds the calls needed to validate field
> name uniqueness as unions are flattened.

I apologize for the long delay.  Sick child, sick me, much snot, little
sleep.

PATCH 1 is wrong, but I was able to figure out what's going on there,
and suggested a patch that hopefully works.

PATCH 2 is okay.  I suggested a few tweaks.  I'd put it first, but
that's up to you.

PATCH 3 looks good.

Looking forward to v3.