Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] migration: split hmp_savevm to do_savevm and hmp_savevm wrapper

[Eric Blake]

On 01/08/2016 09:40 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote:

>>>> Markus' series to add a prefixing notation would be better to use here
>>>> (although I didn't check if he caught this one in that series already):
>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-12/msg03495.html
>>> this series is not yet merged. I think that we could do this refactoring
>>> later on.
>>> This thing could be considered independent. Anyway, this series has its
>>> own value
>>> and it takes a lot of time to push it in. Could we do  error setting
>>> improvement later on?
>> I don't care who rebases on top of the other, but maybe Markus will have
>> an opinion when he gets back online next week.
>>
> why we have to wait with this set due to this reason?

One of you will have to rebase on the other - either you wait for
Markus' error_prepend to go in and you use it, or your patch goes in and
Markus updates his error_prepend patch to cover your additional instance
that will be benefitted by it.  I don't care which, and the timing is
really up to the maintainers and how fast they send pull requests.

> The code with error_prepend and current code are BOTH
> correct. One is a bit shorter then other. Yes, it would
> be nice to switch to it, but why this should be done in
> this set?

Exactly, we're saying the same things.

>>>>> +    if (local_err != NULL) {
>>>> I would have just written 'if (local_err) {'; but that's minor style.
>>> from my point of view explicit != NULL exposes that local_err is a
>>> pointer rather than a boolean value.
>> But the code base already overwhelmingly relies on C's implicit
>> conversion of pointer to a boolean context, as it requires less typing;
>> being verbose doesn't make the code base any easier to read.  However,
>> since HACKING doesn't say one way or the other, I won't make you change.
>>
> I do not understand your last words.
> 
> I am not agitating you with one approach or another. This
> is a reason why I am writing code this way. The code written
> this way looks better to me. This code is NEW and this does
> not contradict any written rule in coding style policy.
> 
> If the code is working and correct, can we just move on with it?

Once again, we are saying the same thing.  I pointed out a cosmetic
issue, but one where I do not have a strong enough leg to stand on to
force you to change your style, so what you did is fine as is.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature