Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH REBASE/RESEND 1/4] qdev: Add a description field for qdev properties for documentation

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 02/18/2011 02:59 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws>  writes:
>
>    
>> On 02/17/2011 07:06 AM, Amit Shah wrote:
>>      
>>> On (Tue) 15 Feb 2011 [10:43:42], Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>>>    #define DEFINE_BLOCK_PROPERTIES(_state, _conf)                          \
>>>>> -    DEFINE_PROP_DRIVE("drive", _state, _conf.bs),                       \
>>>>> +    DEFINE_PROP_DRIVE("drive", _state, _conf.bs, ""),                   \
>>>>>        DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("logical_block_size", _state,                    \
>>>>> -                       _conf.logical_block_size, 512),                  \
>>>>> +                       _conf.logical_block_size, 512, ""),              \
>>>>>        DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("physical_block_size", _state,                   \
>>>>> -                       _conf.physical_block_size, 512),                 \
>>>>> -    DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("min_io_size", _state, _conf.min_io_size, 0),  \
>>>>> -    DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("opt_io_size", _state, _conf.opt_io_size, 0),    \
>>>>> -    DEFINE_PROP_INT32("bootindex", _state, _conf.bootindex, -1),        \
>>>>> +                       _conf.physical_block_size, 512, ""),             \
>>>>> +    DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("min_io_size", _state, _conf.min_io_size, 0, ""), \
>>>>> +    DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("opt_io_size", _state, _conf.opt_io_size, 0, ""), \
>>>>> +        DEFINE_PROP_INT32("bootindex", _state, _conf.bootindex, -1, ""), \
>>>>>        DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("discard_granularity", _state, \
>>>>> -                       _conf.discard_granularity, 0)
>>>>> +                       _conf.discard_granularity, 0, "")
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> This is pretty horribly ugly.  If we were going this, we should at
>>>> least introduce new defines that include a documentation field and
>>>> not just add empty documentation fields.
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> We've discussed this in the past.  Once this patch series gets in,
>>> I'll work to fill in the documentation here along with the
>>> maintainers.
>>>
>>>        
>> It means you're touching everything twice instead of touching
>> everything once.  That's unnecessary churn and blame breakage.
>>
>> It's still just as greppable if you use a new name.
>>      
> What names would you suggest?  DEFINE_PROP_<FOO>_WITH_DOCS()?  For all
> fifteen<FOO>s?  Not a good idea, because the longer name makes doing
> the right thing even less attractive.  We better encourage doing the
> right thing.
>    

Okay, make it a shorter name then DEFPROP_UINT32.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori