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=-9.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 19C8EC4727E for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:40:04 +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 7717D2076E for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:40:03 +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="FrWRysSG" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7717D2076E 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]:48292 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kNaSo-0003jI-8h for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 07:40:02 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33540) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kNaIS-0002fy-Hc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 07:29:20 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:36449) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kNaIN-0003rS-IG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 07:29:20 -0400 Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1601465353; 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=Ie8D6+uPfg6flJ9HCnH5EzI73XiYxViCsWyyCD/aNnE=; b=FrWRysSG/c9VdmgXNTUEmmXcDirjxs5qga8E+VBjlNRHn7BP7Mw8HjQonnf/4YY1zB0bky XBqv16H0/3KlqtZwm2S01QS+MWcZwwwOSCDi4muLlcTDtQRCKqUqETnYZWzNciYHPgXGzS 4tKBNT4tRTZOoZddLoGXARzOzvsNyiM= 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-536-gVLWtzM9NESke1jcLLp4Ew-1; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 07:29:10 -0400 X-MC-Unique: gVLWtzM9NESke1jcLLp4Ew-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B3151015CB6; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:29:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from linux.fritz.box (ovpn-113-128.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.128]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E2385C1C4; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:29:03 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf To: Markus Armbruster Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/13] qmp: Call monitor_set_cur() only in qmp_dispatch() Message-ID: <20200930112903.GA9292@linux.fritz.box> References: <20200909151149.490589-1-kwolf@redhat.com> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87h7rfehtr.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=kwolf@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=63.128.21.124; envelope-from=kwolf@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/09/30 00:31:59 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.469, 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=unavailable 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, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" 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: > >> >> > >> >> > The correct way to set the current monitor for a coroutine handler will > >> >> > be different than for a blocking handler, so monitor_set_cur() needs to > >> >> > be called in qmp_dispatch(). > >> >> > > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf > >> >> > --- > >> >> > include/qapi/qmp/dispatch.h | 3 ++- > >> >> > monitor/qmp.c | 8 +------- > >> >> > qapi/qmp-dispatch.c | 8 +++++++- > >> >> > qga/main.c | 2 +- > >> >> > stubs/monitor-core.c | 5 +++++ > >> >> > tests/test-qmp-cmds.c | 6 +++--- > >> >> > 6 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > >> >> > > >> >> > diff --git a/include/qapi/qmp/dispatch.h b/include/qapi/qmp/dispatch.h > >> >> > index 5a9cf82472..0c2f467028 100644 > >> >> > --- a/include/qapi/qmp/dispatch.h > >> >> > +++ b/include/qapi/qmp/dispatch.h > >> >> > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ > >> >> > #ifndef QAPI_QMP_DISPATCH_H > >> >> > #define QAPI_QMP_DISPATCH_H > >> >> > > >> >> > +#include "monitor/monitor.h" > >> >> > #include "qemu/queue.h" > >> >> > > >> >> > typedef void (QmpCommandFunc)(QDict *, QObject **, Error **); > >> >> > @@ -49,7 +50,7 @@ const char *qmp_command_name(const QmpCommand *cmd); > >> >> > bool qmp_has_success_response(const QmpCommand *cmd); > >> >> > QDict *qmp_error_response(Error *err); > >> >> > QDict *qmp_dispatch(const QmpCommandList *cmds, QObject *request, > >> >> > - bool allow_oob); > >> >> > + bool allow_oob, Monitor *cur_mon); > >> >> > bool qmp_is_oob(const QDict *dict); > >> >> > > >> >> > typedef void (*qmp_cmd_callback_fn)(const QmpCommand *cmd, void *opaque); > >> >> > 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...) > > 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? 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. Kevin