Re: [PATCH v1 15/20] node_device_udev: Pass the driver state as parameter in preparation for the next commit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:46:14AM +0200, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 09:10 AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:03:35AM +0200, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:23 PM -0500, Jonathon Jongsma <jjongsma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On 4/19/24 9:49 AM, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
> >> >> It's better practice for all functions called by the threads to pass the driver
> >> >> via parameter and not global variables. Easier to test and cleaner.
> >> >>
> >> 
> >> […snip…]
> >> 
> >> >>   
> >> >>   
> >> >>   static int
> >> >> -udevProcessPCI(struct udev_device *device,
> >> >> +udevProcessPCI(virNodeDeviceDriverState *driver_state, struct udev_device *device,
> >> >>                  virNodeDeviceDef *def)
> >> >
> >> > While there are exceptions, the general coding style is to have a single 
> >> > argument per line for function definitions.
> >> 
> >> Okay. BTW, why is there no .clangformat configuration available for
> >> Libvirt? :/
> >
> > There is no combination of clangformat settings that can match
> > libvirt code style. If we were startnig again from scratch we
> > would of course want to match a defined clangformat style,
> > but unless we're willing to bulk reformat the codebase we are
> > stuck with what we have.
> 
> Hmm, is the downside of doing a full codebase reformat greater than
> always doing the code formatting manually? Probably it is, otherwise it
> would have already be done :)
>
> If we would have such a big commit we could list it in a
> `.git-blame-ignore-revs` file so it will ignored by git blames.

Yes, that's great for git blame. The bigger problem though is that
a bulk reformat will immediately kill the ability of distro
maintainers to cleanly cherry-pick patches across the big reformat
commit. Cherry-picking the reformat likely won't be clean either,
so they'll be faced with many patches needing manual editting.

The tricky question is whether it is none the less worthwhile doing
it. The distro maintainer pain will be very real, but also somewhat
timelimited, as the need to backport fixes to a given release
as it ages.

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

  Powered by Linux