Re: [PATCH v1 05/26] qemu_domain_address: Reformat qemuDomainAssignS390Addresses()
On 11/30/20 10:38 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 27/11/2020 16.02, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com>
> ---
> src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c | 10 ++++------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c b/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c
> index 2788dc7fb3..d872f75b38 100644
> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c
> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_domain_address.c
> @@ -408,18 +408,16 @@ qemuDomainAssignS390Addresses(virDomainDefPtr def,
> if (qemuDomainIsS390CCW(def) &&
> virQEMUCapsGet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_CCW)) {
> if (virQEMUCapsGet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_DEVICE_VFIO_CCW))
> - qemuDomainPrimeVfioDeviceAddresses(
> - def, VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ADDRESS_TYPE_CCW);
> - qemuDomainPrimeVirtioDeviceAddresses(
> - def, VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ADDRESS_TYPE_CCW);
> + qemuDomainPrimeVfioDeviceAddresses(def,
VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ADDRESS_TYPE_CCW);
Looks fine to me, but docs/coding-style.rst still suggest to format code
with "indent -l75", so is this really the right thing to do here?
It's true that we have 80 characters limit, but that is more of a soft
limit and common sense should be used. Personally, I find
func(
arg1, arg2
);
worse than exceeding that 80 char rule. My common sense tells me that
the rule tries to avoid the following pattern (among others):
func(arg1, arg2, ...., very_long_list_of_arguments, which, could,
easily, go_on_multiple_lines, but, didnt);
> + qemuDomainPrimeVirtioDeviceAddresses(def,
VIR_DOMAIN_DEVICE_ADDRESS_TYPE_CCW);
>
> if (!(addrs = virDomainCCWAddressSetCreateFromDomain(def)))
> goto cleanup;
>
> } else if (virQEMUCapsGet(qemuCaps, QEMU_CAPS_VIRTIO_S390)) {
Not related to your patch, but an idea for a future clean-up: That
QEMU_CAPS_VIRTIO_S390 seems to belong to the ancient "s390-virtio" (without
ccw) machine that has been removed in QEMU v2.6 already:
https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=7b3fdbd9a82
https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commitdiff;h=3538fb6f89d
IIRC, that machine was already considered as deprecated since a couple of
earlier QEMU releases, so I really doubt that anybody is still using that in
production today.
Thus I think that all code related to QEMU_CAPS_VIRTIO_S390 could likely be
removed from libvirt nowadays.
That is even better idea. But currently libvirt supports QEMU-1.5.0 and
newer. So I think we shouldn't remove that until the minimum version is
bumped even though we think feature has no users.
https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt/-/commit/c1bc9c662b4
Although, it might be about time to look again what is the oldest QEMU
we need to support.
Michal