Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 04/14] nodedev: Use switch for virNodeDeviceObjHasCap and virNodeDeviceCapMatch

On 05/26/2017 03:14 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 15:57:01 -0400, John Ferlan wrote: >> In order to ensure that whenever something is added to virNodeDevCapType >> that both functions are considered for processing of a new capability, >> change the if-then-else construct into a switch statement. >> >> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan(a)redhat.com&gt; >> --- >> src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ >> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c b/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c >> index bbb6eeb..913cdda 100644 >> --- a/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c >> +++ b/src/conf/virnodedeviceobj.c >> @@ -48,19 +48,41 @@ virNodeDeviceObjHasCap(const virNodeDeviceObj *dev, >> while (caps) { >> if (STREQ(cap, virNodeDevCapTypeToString(caps->data.type))) { >> return 1; >> - } else if (caps->data.type == VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_SCSI_HOST) { >> - if ((STREQ(cap, fc_host_cap) && >> - (caps->data.scsi_host.flags & >> - VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_FLAG_HBA_FC_HOST)) || >> - (STREQ(cap, vports_cap) && >> - (caps->data.scsi_host.flags & >> - VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_FLAG_HBA_VPORT_OPS))) >> - return 1; >> - } else if (caps->data.type == VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_PCI_DEV) { >> - if ((STREQ(cap, mdev_types)) && >> - (caps->data.pci_dev.flags & >> - VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_FLAG_PCI_MDEV)) >> - return 1; >> + } else { >> + switch (caps->data.type) { >> + case VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_PCI_DEV: >> + if ((STREQ(cap, mdev_types)) && >> + (caps->data.pci_dev.flags & >> + VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_FLAG_PCI_MDEV)) > > Since you are touching this, put this on a single line. It looks very > ugly this way. It also fits into the 80 col boundary, so I don't see a > reaosn for this. For MDEV - it can fit, for SCSI_HOST, not as clean, but it could be: if ((STREQ(cap, fc_host_cap) && (caps->data.scsi_host.flags & VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_FLAG_HBA_FC_HOST)) || (STREQ(cap, vports_cap) && (caps->data.scsi_host.flags & VIR_NODE_DEV_CAP_FLAG_HBA_VPORT_OPS)))

return 1; Although I'm not sure I like the way that looks.

But does that "violate" the too many changes at once "guideline"?