From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58631) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eKpYX-0003Zu-Qd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 12:56:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eKpYU-0004U6-Hq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 12:56:57 -0500 References: <20171130164750.47320-1-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> <20171130164750.47320-3-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> From: Eric Blake Message-ID: <02b78b18-1a78-3144-12cf-0831821c930b@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 11:56:46 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171130164750.47320-3-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] qcow2: fix indentation after previous patch List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, mreitz@redhat.com On 11/30/2017 10:47 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy > --- > block/qcow2.h | 34 +++++++++++++++++----------------- > block/qcow2.c | 16 ++++++++-------- > 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/qcow2.h b/block/qcow2.h > index 8f226a3609..896ad08e5b 100644 > --- a/block/qcow2.h > +++ b/block/qcow2.h > @@ -399,29 +399,29 @@ typedef enum QCow2ClusterType { > } QCow2ClusterType; > > typedef enum QCow2MetadataOverlap { > - QCOW2_OL_MAIN_HEADER_BITNR = 0, > - QCOW2_OL_ACTIVE_L1_BITNR = 1, > - QCOW2_OL_ACTIVE_L2_BITNR = 2, > - QCOW2_OL_REFCOUNT_TABLE_BITNR = 3, > - QCOW2_OL_REFCOUNT_BLOCK_BITNR = 4, > - QCOW2_OL_SNAPSHOT_TABLE_BITNR = 5, > - QCOW2_OL_INACTIVE_L1_BITNR = 6, > - QCOW2_OL_INACTIVE_L2_BITNR = 7, > + QCOW2_OL_MAIN_HEADER_BITNR = 0, > + QCOW2_OL_ACTIVE_L1_BITNR = 1, This demonstrates why I'm a fan of single space before =: foo = 1, blah = 2, because it is needless churn to realign everything if you add a new longer line that doesn't fit with the earlier alignment of =. But we don't have a clear preference for either code style, and I'm also okay if you just squash this in with the previous patch or omit it altogether. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org