From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LrzPW-00083P-5j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:55:38 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LrzPQ-00082I-OJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:55:36 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39958 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LrzPQ-00082B-Hg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:55:32 -0400 Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.160]:10724) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LrzPQ-0007ad-1c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:55:32 -0400 From: Kevin Wolf Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu-io: Verify read data by patterns Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:55:07 +0200 References: <1239284776-2115-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <200904091907.45921@kevin-wolf.de> <49DE3641.9090900@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <49DE3641.9090900@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904092055.08042@kevin-wolf.de> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Kevin Wolf , Christoph Hellwig Am Donnerstag, 9. April 2009 19:54 schrieb Anthony Liguori: > Kevin Wolf wrote: > > This is what you get for using tabs. You deserve it. ;-) > > > > Seriously, I found this really annoying when I did the patch because > > almost everything else in qemu has four spaces and I needed to change my > > editor settings for just this file. But I still left indentation on four > > characters, so this line did fit for me. > > > > I can either send a second version of the patch which fixes this line, or > > we could have a patch which changes the indentation of the whole file to > > four spaces (as specified in the coding style document). qemu-io might be > > new enough to not destroy valuable svn blame information with such a > > patch. > > The only reason I merged it as-is is because the code was derived from > something else. I didn't want to force a reindentation that would make > it harder to keep the code synced against the upstream project. That makes sense. However, I'm not sure if there is much left to sync with upstream? The code structure might be similar to upstream and maybe a few helper functions are the same (I'm not sure about that), but all in all the code seems to be pretty much specific to qemu. So if there are any chances that we actually will merge upstream changes in future, I'm glad to change that one line. But if this is going to remain a purely theoretical option, I would prefer to change the indentation. Kevin