From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8E5C4727E for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 16:10:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5C8420706 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 16:10:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="P/ERmy7j" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E5C8420706 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:50692 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kO1AJ-00019q-UN for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 12:10:43 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35578) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kO11C-0008Fk-Rn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 12:01:20 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:44903) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kO117-0006zQ-Fr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 12:01:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1601568069; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mkK8OetmpRT48UtYH62Qze8RxJf60+ujKw9+0ORqTwM=; b=P/ERmy7jKkmWH4SxtXhkHQFhWP6K8IdnVQZcCfnihbWco92MClS74/4Ph9cxkX5b0+NSrS 6WF6KboQP7CRWypo9+NMPOkEavpUvuHzc0DpBVbxGjvfMimaqBOL587HsMA52xSdW3FR8M tNNWmZKi8KROQv8lIknY2eci9wK8HnU= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-276-rBB_qMGaNaOqTbxEhhT3pw-1; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 12:00:53 -0400 X-MC-Unique: rBB_qMGaNaOqTbxEhhT3pw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34CF0101FFA4; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 16:00:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-112-101.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.101]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F125F19C59; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 16:00:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 63C661132784; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 18:00:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Kevin Wolf Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/13] qmp: Call monitor_set_cur() only in qmp_dispatch() References: <20200909151149.490589-7-kwolf@redhat.com> <877dswo0mf.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20200925151304.GE5731@linux.fritz.box> <87ft72i0v8.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20200928143052.GH5451@linux.fritz.box> <87h7rfehtr.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20200930112903.GA9292@linux.fritz.box> <87o8ln9zl3.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20200930140051.GC9292@linux.fritz.box> <20200930172020.GE2783@work-vm> <20201001101403.GA6673@linux.fritz.box> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 18:00:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20201001101403.GA6673@linux.fritz.box> (Kevin Wolf's message of "Thu, 1 Oct 2020 12:14:03 +0200") Message-ID: <87imbux7f4.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=armbru@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=63.128.21.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/01 02:15:30 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: stefanha@redhat.com, marcandre.lureau@gmail.com, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Kevin Wolf writes: > Am 30.09.2020 um 19:20 hat Dr. David Alan Gilbert geschrieben: >> * Kevin Wolf (kwolf@redhat.com) wrote: >> > Am 30.09.2020 um 15:14 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >> > > Kevin Wolf writes: >> > > >> > > > Am 30.09.2020 um 11:26 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >> > > >> Kevin Wolf writes: >> > > >> >> > > >> > Am 28.09.2020 um 13:42 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >> > > >> >> Kevin Wolf writes: >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > Am 14.09.2020 um 17:10 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >> > > >> >> >> Kevin Wolf writes: >> > > [...] >> > > >> >> >> > diff --git a/monitor/qmp.c b/monitor/qmp.c >> > > >> >> >> > index 8469970c69..922fdb5541 100644 >> > > >> >> >> > --- a/monitor/qmp.c >> > > >> >> >> > +++ b/monitor/qmp.c >> > > >> >> >> > @@ -135,16 +135,10 @@ static void monitor_qmp_respond(MonitorQMP *mon, QDict *rsp) >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > static void monitor_qmp_dispatch(MonitorQMP *mon, QObject *req) >> > > >> >> >> > { >> > > >> >> >> > - Monitor *old_mon; >> > > >> >> >> > QDict *rsp; >> > > >> >> >> > QDict *error; >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > - old_mon = monitor_set_cur(&mon->common); >> > > >> >> >> > - assert(old_mon == NULL); >> > > >> >> >> > - >> > > >> >> >> > - rsp = qmp_dispatch(mon->commands, req, qmp_oob_enabled(mon)); >> > > >> >> >> > - >> > > >> >> >> > - monitor_set_cur(NULL); >> > > >> >> >> > + rsp = qmp_dispatch(mon->commands, req, qmp_oob_enabled(mon), &mon->common); >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Long line. Happy to wrap it in my tree. A few more in PATCH 08-11. >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > It's 79 characters. Should be fine even with your local deviation from >> > > >> >> > the coding style to require less than that for comments? >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> Let me rephrase my remark. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> For me, >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> rsp = qmp_dispatch(mon->commands, req, qmp_oob_enabled(mon), >> > > >> >> &mon->common); >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> is significantly easier to read than >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> rsp = qmp_dispatch(mon->commands, req, qmp_oob_enabled(mon), &mon->common); >> > > >> > >> > > >> > I guess this is highly subjective. I find wrapped lines harder to read. >> > > >> > For answering subjective questions like this, we generally use the >> > > >> > coding style document. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Anyway, I guess following an idiosyncratic coding style that is >> > > >> > different from every other subsystem in QEMU is possible (if >> > > >> > inconvenient) if I know what it is. >> > > >> >> > > >> The applicable coding style document is PEP 8. >> > > > >> > > > I'll happily apply PEP 8 to Python code, but this is C. I don't think >> > > > PEP 8 applies very well to C code. (In fact, PEP 7 exists as a C style >> > > > guide, but we're not writing C code for the Python project here...) >> > > >> > > I got confused (too much Python code review), my apologies. >> > > >> > > >> > My problem is more that I don't know what the exact rules are. Can they >> > > >> > only be figured out experimentally by submitting patches and seeing >> > > >> > whether you like them or not? >> > > >> >> > > >> PEP 8: >> > > >> >> > > >> A style guide is about consistency. Consistency with this style >> > > >> guide is important. Consistency within a project is more important. >> > > >> Consistency within one module or function is the most important. >> > > >> >> > > >> In other words, you should make a reasonable effort to blend in. >> > > > >> > > > The project style guide for C is defined in CODING_STYLE.rst. Missing >> > > > consistency with it is what I'm complaining about. >> > > > >> > > > I also agree that consistency within one module or function is most >> > > > important, which is why I allow you to reformat my code. But I don't >> > > > think it means that local coding style rules shouldn't be documented, >> > > > especially if you can't just look at the code and see immediately how >> > > > it's supposed to be. >> > > > >> > > >> >> Would you mind me wrapping this line in my tree? >> > > >> > >> > > >> > I have no say in this subsystem and I take it that you want all code to >> > > >> > look as if you had written it yourself, so do as you wish. >> > > >> >> > > >> I'm refusing the bait. >> > > >> >> > > >> > But I understand that I'll have to respin anyway, so if you could >> > > >> > explain what you're after, I might be able to apply the rules for the >> > > >> > next version of the series. >> > > >> >> > > >> First, PEP 8 again: >> > > >> >> > > >> Limit all lines to a maximum of 79 characters. >> > > >> >> > > >> For flowing long blocks of text with fewer structural restrictions >> > > >> (docstrings or comments), the line length should be limited to 72 >> > > >> characters. >> > > > >> > > > Ok, that's finally clear limits at least. >> > > > >> > > > Any other rules from PEP 8 that you want to see applied to C code? >> > > >> > > PEP 8 does not apply to C. >> > > >> > > > Would you mind documenting this somewhere? >> > > > >> > > >> Second, an argument we two had on this list, during review of a prior >> > > >> version of this patch series, talking about C: >> > > >> >> > > >> Legibility. Humans tend to have trouble following long lines with >> > > >> their eyes (I sure do). Typographic manuals suggest to limit >> > > >> columns to roughly 60 characters for exactly that reason[*]. >> > > >> >> > > >> Code is special. It's typically indented, and long identifiers push >> > > >> it further to the right, function arguments in particular. We >> > > >> compromised at 80 columns. >> > > >> >> > > >> [...] >> > > >> >> > > >> [*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_(typography)#Typographic_style >> > > >> >> > > >> The width of the line not counting indentation matters for legibility. >> > > >> >> > > >> The line I flagged as long is 75 characters wide not counting >> > > >> indentation. That's needlessly hard to read for me. >> > > >> >> > > >> PEP 8's line length limit is a *limit*, not a sacred right to push right >> > > >> to the limit. >> > > >> >> > > >> Since I get to read this code a lot, I've taken care to avoid illegibly >> > > >> wide lines, and I've guided contributors to blend in. >> > > > >> > > > As I said, I don't mind the exact number much. I do mind predictability, >> > > > though. (And ideally also consistency across the project because >> > > > otherwise I need to change my editor settings for individual files.) >> > > > >> > > > So if you don't like 79 columns, give me any other number. But >> > > > please, do give me something specific I can work with. "illegibly wide" >> > > > is not something I can work with because it's highly subjective. >> > > >> > > Taste is subjective. >> > > >> > > We can always make CODING_STYLE.rst more detailed. I view that as a >> > > last resort when we waste too much time arguing. >> > > >> > > Back to line length. >> > > >> > > CODING_STYLE.rst sets a *limit*. >> > > >> > > Going over the limit violates CODING_STYLE.rst. There are (rare) cases >> > > where that is justified. >> > > >> > > CODING_STYLE.rst neither demands nor prohibits breaking lines before the >> > > limit is reached. >> > > >> > > Until CODING_STYLE.rst prohibits breaking lines unless they exceed the >> > > limit, I will continue to ask for breaking lines when that makes the >> > > code easier to read and more consistent with the code around it, for >> > > code I maintain, and admittedly in my opinion. >> > > >> > > These requests appear to irk you a great deal. I don't understand, but >> > > I'm sorry about it all the same. By arguing about it repeatedly, you've >> > > irked some back. Brought it on myself, I guess. However, if that's >> > > what it takes to keep the code I maintain legible and consistent, I'll >> > > pay the price. >> > >> > I conclude that I'll never be able to submit code that passes your >> > review in the first attempt because I don't know the specific criteria >> > (and you don't seem to know them either before you see the patch). >> > >> > Fine, I'll live with it. It's just one of the things that makes working >> > in your subsystems more frustrating than in others. >> >> Hmm, >> IMHO the thing here is that there's two different things here: >> >> a) A CODING_STYLE limit - and personally I use every last character >> of that when appropriate >> b) For this particular case, Markus is saying he prefers the wrap >> there. >> >> I don't think I see (b) as incompatible as a preference, but lets be >> sensible; if it's something you want to change in merge that seems >> reasonable, if it's something that you ask to change in a respin that's >> kind of reasonable, just don't hold up a big patch series for an >> argument over something that's legal in the coding style and isn't >> particularly offensive! I don't think I ever asked for a respin just to adjust style. I always offer to adjust style myself in my tree. If a respin is needed for some other reason, also making the style adjustments I requested is courteous and appreciated. I don't think I ever rejected a patch just due to differences over style. If a patch submitter refused to make the style adjustments I want, and refused to permit me to make them, I'd commit as is, then maye adjust on top. This is hypothetical. > I'll just change this one in the next version. Changing a single > well-known instance not a big problem. It's just unfortunate that there > are "A few more in PATCH 08-11" and I don't know how to identify them. When I do that, and you'd rather have a complete list, just ask. Out of time for today, but I can get it for you first thing tomorrow. [...]