Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/23] block: Connect BlockBackend and DriveInfo

[Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1712 bytes --]

On 09/11/2014 12:03 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Benoît Canet <benoit.canet@irqsave.net> writes:
> 
>> The Wednesday 10 Sep 2014 à 10:13:33 (+0200), Markus Armbruster wrote :
>>> Make the BlockBackend own the DriveInfo.  Change blockdev_init() to
>>> return the BlockBackend instead of the DriveInfo.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>>> ---


>>> +static void drive_info_del(DriveInfo *dinfo);
>>
>> Is there any technical reason not to just put the
>> drive_info_del above the blk_delete function ?
>> I don't see any possible circular references between the two.
>>
>> Some people like Eric frown upon static function prototypes
>> in final code that's why I am asking.

I dislike it in code I write, and so I point it out in reviews, but I
also concede that it is a style, not technical issue, so I will never
reject a patch that uses forward declarations if the author thinks that
makes the presentation of the overall file easier to follow.

> 
> Placing functions before their callers makes the program easier to read
> when you need to see the functions definition before you can understand
> their use.
> 
> Placing the functions after callers makes the program easier to read
> when the gist of what they do is obvious from the call.  You're omitting
> unnecessary detail there, to be flesh it own further down.  Saving a
> function declaration is immaterial compared to that.
> 
> Before I put the function where I don't want it, I'd inline it :)

Then I won't try to convince you to paint the bikeshed any other color.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 539 bytes --]