On 01/06/2016 01:58 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
On 12/18/2015 10:45 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
> v1:
>
http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-December/msg00731.html
>
> Changes over v1:
>
> 1. Insert patch 1 to convert already pushed VSH_POOL into VIRSH_POOL
> since that was the review comment from this patch series
>
> 2. Insert patch 2 to move the POOL_OPT_COMMON to virsh.h for later
> patch reuse.
>
> 3. Use VIRSH_* instead of VSH_* for patches 1-8 (now 3-10)
>
> 4. Add usage of common domain for virsh-domain-monitor.c and
> virsh-snapshot.c (patches 11-12)
>
> 5. Add common macros for "network" and "interface" (patches
13-14).
>
> NOTE: I figure to let this perculate for a bit as I'll assume there
> may be varying opinions on this... Also, the next couple of weeks
> heavy on people perhaps paying not paying close attention to the list.
I'm a bit conflicted. On one hand, it makes for less bulk in the code
and assures consistency when the same option is used by multiple
commands. On the other hand, as Peter said in a response to the original
patch, it obscures things behind macros which can lead to confusion (and
extra time backtracking).
Understood; however, at least they're more or less easily found
especially if you use cscope. There are certainly some macros in the
source code which are far more obfuscated!
If you're looking for a final "vote" from me, I guess I'd give it +1
(brevity wins this time), with these comments:
1) I assume that make check and make syntax-check have been run for each
patch. :-)
yes, painfully ;-)
2) I agree with using "VIRSH_..." instead of
"VSH_..." (I dislike the
shortening of virsh to vsh - doing that just for 2 characters? What is
this, twitter? :-P)
Newsflash - twitter is apparently expanding to allow 10000 characters.
Maybe now I'll be able to start tweeting (yeah, right, not!)
3) I haven't looked at how is meshes with consistency of other
macro
names in virsh*, but it would make more sense to me if these were named
VIRSH_COMMON_OPT_BLAH
instead of
VIRSH_BLAH_OPT_COMMON
It reads better, and sticks the difference out at the end where it is
more easily separated from the "common common" part.
I was following Peter's suggested naming:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-December/msg00675.html
but I have no favorite... If others chime in and agree, then I'm fine
with switching.
thanks for the comments -
John
>
> John Ferlan (14):
> virsh: Covert VSH_POOL_ macro to VIRSH_POOL_
> virsh: Move VIRSH_POOL_OPT_COMMON to virsh.h
> virsh: Create macro for common "domain" option
> virsh: Create macro for common "persistent" option
> virsh: Create macro for common "config" option
> virsh: Create macro for common "live" option
> virsh: Create macro for common "current" option
> virsh: Create macro for common "file" option
> virsh: Create macros for common "pool" options
> virsh: Create macros for common "vol" options
> virsh: Have domain-monitor use common "domain" option
> virsh: have snapshot use common "domain" option
> virsh: Create macro for common "network" option
> virsh: Create macro for common "interface" option
>
> po/POTFILES.in | 1 +
> tools/virsh-domain-monitor.c | 77 +---
> tools/virsh-domain.c | 911
> +++++++++----------------------------------
> tools/virsh-interface.c | 37 +-
> tools/virsh-network.c | 61 +--
> tools/virsh-pool.c | 71 ++--
> tools/virsh-snapshot.c | 60 +--
> tools/virsh-volume.c | 148 ++-----
> tools/virsh.h | 17 +
> 9 files changed, 334 insertions(+), 1049 deletions(-)
>