It is not used in QEMU - and if somebody needs this functionality,
they can simply use g_uri_escape_string() from the glib instead.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
---
 include/qemu/uri.h |  1 -
 util/uri.c         | 64 ----------------------------------------------
 2 files changed, 65 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/qemu/uri.h b/include/qemu/uri.h
index aa54b6f251..c1734d28c3 100644
--- a/include/qemu/uri.h
+++ b/include/qemu/uri.h
@@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ URI *uri_parse(const char *str);
 URI *uri_parse_raw(const char *str, int raw);
 int uri_parse_into(URI *uri, const char *str);
 char *uri_to_string(URI *uri);
-char *uri_string_escape(const char *str, const char *list);
 char *uri_string_unescape(const char *str, int len);
 void uri_free(URI *uri);
 
diff --git a/util/uri.c b/util/uri.c
index 2a75f535ba..912e406523 100644
--- a/util/uri.c
+++ b/util/uri.c
@@ -1589,70 +1589,6 @@ char *uri_string_unescape(const char *str, int len)
     return g_uri_unescape_string(lstr, NULL);
 }
 
-/**
- * uri_string_escape:
- * @str:  string to escape
- * @list: exception list string of chars not to escape
- *
- * This routine escapes a string to hex, ignoring reserved characters (a-z)
- * and the characters in the exception list.
- *
- * Returns a new escaped string or NULL in case of error.
- */
-char *uri_string_escape(const char *str, const char *list)
-{
-    char *ret, ch;
-    char *temp;
-    const char *in;
-    int len, out;
-
-    if (str == NULL) {
-        return NULL;
-    }
-    if (str[0] == 0) {
-        return g_strdup(str);
-    }
-    len = strlen(str);
-    if (!(len > 0)) {
-        return NULL;
-    }
-
-    len += 20;
-    ret = g_malloc(len);
-    in = str;
-    out = 0;
-    while (*in != 0) {
-        if (len - out <= 3) {
-            temp = realloc2n(ret, &len);
-            ret = temp;
-        }
-
-        ch = *in;
-
-        if ((ch != '@') && (!IS_UNRESERVED(ch)) && (!strchr(list, ch))) {
-            unsigned char val;
-            ret[out++] = '%';
-            val = ch >> 4;
-            if (val <= 9) {
-                ret[out++] = '0' + val;
-            } else {
-                ret[out++] = 'A' + val - 0xA;
-            }
-            val = ch & 0xF;
-            if (val <= 9) {
-                ret[out++] = '0' + val;
-            } else {
-                ret[out++] = 'A' + val - 0xA;
-            }
-            in++;
-        } else {
-            ret[out++] = *in++;
-        }
-    }
-    ret[out] = 0;
-    return ret;
-}
-
 /************************************************************************
  *                                                                      *
  *                           Public functions                           *
-- 
2.43.0

Am 22.01.24 um 20:17 schrieb Thomas Huth:

> It is not used in QEMU - and if somebody needs this functionality,
> they can simply use g_uri_escape_string() from the glib instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> ---
>   include/qemu/uri.h |  1 -
>   util/uri.c         | 64 ----------------------------------------------
>   2 files changed, 65 deletions(-)


The removed function is used in util/uri.c, so this patch breaks the 
compilation.

That can be fixed by applying patch 4 before this one.

With that re-ordering you may add my signature:

Reviewed-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>

On 22/01/2024 21.59, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 22.01.24 um 20:17 schrieb Thomas Huth:
> 
>> It is not used in QEMU - and if somebody needs this functionality,
>> they can simply use g_uri_escape_string() from the glib instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   include/qemu/uri.h |  1 -
>>   util/uri.c         | 64 ----------------------------------------------
>>   2 files changed, 65 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> The removed function is used in util/uri.c, so this patch breaks the 
> compilation.
> 
> That can be fixed by applying patch 4 before this one.
> 
> With that re-ordering you may add my signature:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>

D'oh, I originally developed the patches the other way round indeed, but 
then thought it would be nicer for review this way and swapped the order 
without checking :-( ... I'll swap it back again.

Thanks!

  Thomas