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=-8.3 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,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 03D06C4727E for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:22:21 +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 5C837206F4 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:22:20 +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="hC9UKjK8" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5C837206F4 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]:53382 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kNfo2-0005FM-UW for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:22:18 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48548) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kNfmN-0003np-Gx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:20:35 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:26309) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kNfmK-0001hK-EF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:20:35 -0400 Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1601486431; 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=1CTIgPD9HRYaAQNiAbTzdC8FSpVdIDlD0XJUcnczWpg=; b=hC9UKjK88GFSWLXDkrHzvXHqzaDezh8MRbEvjvFGTSQzhXTKEm7rIDZ3b5rV2XjG+KpPs+ OGk3CxA6iELNIRoHLNat/70IUg+lyJl4QC8U18cqfm7fTyWBa11qkiImHoXLanEDji4IB9 CVIEBpokX0KgqYxyrMNDNDWR3nJmPyY= 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-224-CVtxKFB7NSKlspXaBudwZg-1; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:20:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: CVtxKFB7NSKlspXaBudwZg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CBCC1868420; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from work-vm (ovpn-114-238.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.238]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B24E100238C; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:20:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:20:20 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" To: Kevin Wolf Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/13] qmp: Call monitor_set_cur() only in qmp_dispatch() Message-ID: <20200930172020.GE2783@work-vm> 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> <20200930112903.GA9292@linux.fritz.box> <87o8ln9zl3.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20200930140051.GC9292@linux.fritz.box> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200930140051.GC9292@linux.fritz.box> User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dgilbert@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=dgilbert@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: qemu-block@nongnu.org, marcandre.lureau@gmail.com, Markus Armbruster , stefanha@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" * 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! Dave > Kevin -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK