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

[Het Gala]

Hi all,

On 17/03/23 9:25 pm, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 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.

Thankyou Markus for your suggestions and I hope everyone is in good 
health now. This is just a friendly reminder if Daniel is ready with v3 
patches for the same :)

Regards,
Het Gala