Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] qapi: fix example of BLOCK_IMAGE_CORRUPTED event

[Victor Toso]

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 01:19:42PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Victor Toso <victortoso@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 10:54:41AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Victor Toso <victortoso@redhat.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Fatal is not optional.
> >> 
> >> Recognizing that "Fatal" refers to member "fatal" takes mental
> >> effort.  Always use identifiers verbatim, including case.
> >> Where that makes for confusing prose, prefix with a @ like
> >> @fatal, or rephrase, like "The
> >> member fatal".
> >
> > That's true.
> >
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Victor Toso <victortoso@redhat.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  qapi/block-core.json | 7 +++----
> >> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json
> >> > index e89f2dfb5b..63c30a5378 100644
> >> > --- a/qapi/block-core.json
> >> > +++ b/qapi/block-core.json
> >> > @@ -5006,10 +5006,9 @@
> >> >  # Example:
> >> >  #
> >> >  # <- { "event": "BLOCK_IMAGE_CORRUPTED",
> >> > -#      "data": { "device": "ide0-hd0", "node-name": "node0",
> >> > -#                "msg": "Prevented active L1 table overwrite", 
> >> > "offset": 196608,
> >> > -#                "size": 65536 },
> >> > -#      "timestamp": { "seconds": 1378126126, "microseconds": 966463 } }
> >> > +#      "data": { "device": "", "node-name": "drive", "fatal": false,
> >> > +#                "msg": "L2 table offset 0x2a2a2a00 unaligned (L1 
> >> > index: 0)" },
> >> > +#      "timestamp": { "seconds": 1648243240, "microseconds": 906060 } }
> >> >  #
> >> >  # Since: 1.7
> >> >  ##
> >> 
> >> Changing the value of @msg makes sense, but is worth a note in the
> >> commit message.
> >> 
> >> Here's my try:
> >> 
> >>     qapi: fix example of BLOCK_IMAGE_CORRUPTED event
> >> 
> >>     Example output lacks mandatory member @fatal.  Provide it.
> >> 
> >>     Example output shows a value of @msg no version of the code
> >>     produces.  No big deal, but replace it anyway by one that today's
> >>     code does produce.
> >> 
> >> How do you like it?
> >
> > I agree. I'll be more careful in near future. Thanks for the
> > suggestion. I've submit a v2.1 of this patch.
> 
> That's okay.  Asking me to replace the commit message in my
> tree is also okay.
> 
> PATCH 3's commit message could use the same treatment.  Would
> you like to go over all of them and respin?  Should be quick,
> no code changes.

Sure, I'll be sending a v3 and amend the commit messages where
your previous suggestions fits.  I'll add the changes in the
cover-letter to help identify them.

Cheers,

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature