Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 03/26/2012 01:01 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 17:45, Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is this something we universally want to do?  What would we do about patches
>> to audio?
>
> I'd do it in cases when there is code movement, then git blame will
> not be very useful anyway and other people have to rebase their
> patches as well.
>
> The audio case has an additional factor, namely maintainer disagreeing
> with global style and consistency. There are several ways how to
> handle that case, one of which is to maintain status quo.
>
>> I'd prefer not to go down this road.  Let's keep discussion of fixing
>> CODING_STYLE of existing code separate from rearchitecting/enhancing code.
>
> When code is moved, rearchitected or enhanced, that would be a good
> point when to fix style too. Though this assumes that just fixing
> style without those events is evil, but is it? I think you have not
> been fully consistent in this matter.

I think modifying coding style alone is evil.

But I'm also sick of arguing about coding style.  If you take this patch series 
as an example, this is the beginning of a fundamental refactoring to how we do 
machines and devices in QEMU--and yet, we're discussing coding style.

I don't see an obvious way to just get past the coding style discussions.  If 
there was a perfect way to automate fixing coding style, at this point, I would 
say let's do it.  But there is no way I want to spend the next two years taking 
coding style fixup patches.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>> Regards,
>>
>> Anthony Liguori
>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Anthony Liguori
>>
>>