Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/5] Migration pull request

[Juan Quintela]

address@hidden wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for
> more information:
>
> Type: series
> Message-id: address@hidden
> Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/5] Migration pull request

> Updating 3c8cf5a9c21ff8782164d1def7f44bd888713384
> From https://github.com/patchew-project/qemu
>  t [tag update]            patchew/address@hidden -> patchew/address@hidden
>  * [new tag]               patchew/address@hidden -> patchew/address@hidden
> Switched to a new branch 'test'
> 99ac0fb20d migration: not wait RDMA_CM_EVENT_DISCONNECTED event after 
> rdma_disconnect
> 7c902253bb migration: remove unnecessary variables len in QIOChannelRDMA
> 3c1203cb38 migration: Don't activate block devices if using -S
> 2ecc458546 migration: discard non-migratable RAMBlocks
> 718b388d4e migration: introduce decompress-error-check
>
> === OUTPUT BEGIN ===
> Checking PATCH 1/5: migration: introduce decompress-error-check...
> Checking PATCH 2/5: migration: discard non-migratable RAMBlocks...
> ERROR: Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop
> #191: FILE: migration/ram.c:161:
> +#define RAMBLOCK_FOREACH_MIGRATABLE(block)             \
> +    RAMBLOCK_FOREACH(block)                            \
> +        if (!qemu_ram_is_migratable(block)) {} else
>
> ERROR: trailing statements should be on next line
> #193: FILE: migration/ram.c:163:
> +        if (!qemu_ram_is_migratable(block)) {} else

We know. it is on purpose.  There is no good solution.  Changing
checkpatch don't make sense either, it is an one-off case.

Later, Juan.