Re: [PATCH v1 05/26] qemu_domain_address: Reformat qemuDomainAssignS390Addresses()

On 30/11/2020 11.18, Michal Privoznik wrote: > 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&gt; >>> --- >>>   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); Fair point, but then this should IMHO be reflected in the coding-style doc first. Otherwise the next contributor to this file might simply undo your change to fit everything again into the 80 (or even 75) columns limit...?