From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45147 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PqS9V-0004Tz-Lq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:21:50 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PqS9U-00051d-Ff
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:21:49 -0500
Received: from mail-qy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.216.173]:63762)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1PqS9U-00051Y-DM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:21:48 -0500
Received: by qyl38 with SMTP id 38so568110qyl.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:21:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D5E8E7F.8030608@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:21:35 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH REBASE/RESEND 1/4] qdev: Add a description
	field for qdev properties for documentation
References: <cover.1296800129.git.amit.shah@redhat.com>	<f82c12ab9864ba4211752e7df78be9735b9602a2.1296800130.git.amit.shah@redhat.com>	<4D5AAD3E.6010201@codemonkey.ws>	<20110217130657.GD27487@amit-x200.redhat.com>	<4D5D1ECA.1060901@codemonkey.ws>
	<m34o814t1t.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <m34o814t1t.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>, qemu list <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 02/18/2011 02:59 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws>  writes:
>
>    
>> On 02/17/2011 07:06 AM, Amit Shah wrote:
>>      
>>> On (Tue) 15 Feb 2011 [10:43:42], Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>>>    #define DEFINE_BLOCK_PROPERTIES(_state, _conf)                          \
>>>>> -    DEFINE_PROP_DRIVE("drive", _state, _conf.bs),                       \
>>>>> +    DEFINE_PROP_DRIVE("drive", _state, _conf.bs, ""),                   \
>>>>>        DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("logical_block_size", _state,                    \
>>>>> -                       _conf.logical_block_size, 512),                  \
>>>>> +                       _conf.logical_block_size, 512, ""),              \
>>>>>        DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("physical_block_size", _state,                   \
>>>>> -                       _conf.physical_block_size, 512),                 \
>>>>> -    DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("min_io_size", _state, _conf.min_io_size, 0),  \
>>>>> -    DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("opt_io_size", _state, _conf.opt_io_size, 0),    \
>>>>> -    DEFINE_PROP_INT32("bootindex", _state, _conf.bootindex, -1),        \
>>>>> +                       _conf.physical_block_size, 512, ""),             \
>>>>> +    DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("min_io_size", _state, _conf.min_io_size, 0, ""), \
>>>>> +    DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("opt_io_size", _state, _conf.opt_io_size, 0, ""), \
>>>>> +        DEFINE_PROP_INT32("bootindex", _state, _conf.bootindex, -1, ""), \
>>>>>        DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("discard_granularity", _state, \
>>>>> -                       _conf.discard_granularity, 0)
>>>>> +                       _conf.discard_granularity, 0, "")
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> This is pretty horribly ugly.  If we were going this, we should at
>>>> least introduce new defines that include a documentation field and
>>>> not just add empty documentation fields.
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> We've discussed this in the past.  Once this patch series gets in,
>>> I'll work to fill in the documentation here along with the
>>> maintainers.
>>>
>>>        
>> It means you're touching everything twice instead of touching
>> everything once.  That's unnecessary churn and blame breakage.
>>
>> It's still just as greppable if you use a new name.
>>      
> What names would you suggest?  DEFINE_PROP_<FOO>_WITH_DOCS()?  For all
> fifteen<FOO>s?  Not a good idea, because the longer name makes doing
> the right thing even less attractive.  We better encourage doing the
> right thing.
>    

Okay, make it a shorter name then DEFPROP_UINT32.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori