On 11/01/2012 11:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
The libvirt coding standard is to use 'function(...args...)' instead of 'function (...args...)'. A non-trivial number of places did not follow this rule and are fixed in this patch.
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com> ---
It would be easier to review if it was split into few more commits, but I'm going for it anyway. [...]
diff --git a/src/cpu/cpu_x86.c b/src/cpu/cpu_x86.c index e691c04..ca8cd92 100644 --- a/src/cpu/cpu_x86.c +++ b/src/cpu/cpu_x86.c @@ -548,16 +548,16 @@ x86VendorLoad(xmlXPathContextPtr ctxt, }
vendor->cpuid.function = 0; - vendor->cpuid.ebx = (string[0] ) | - (string[1] << 8) | - (string[2] << 16) | - (string[3] << 24); - vendor->cpuid.edx = (string[4] ) | - (string[5] << 8) | - (string[6] << 16) | - (string[7] << 24); - vendor->cpuid.ecx = (string[8] ) | - (string[9] << 8) | + vendor->cpuid.ebx = (string[0]) | + (string[1] << 8) | + (string[2] << 16) | + (string[3] << 24); + vendor->cpuid.edx = (string[4]) | + (string[5] << 8) | + (string[6] << 16) | + (string[7] << 24); + vendor->cpuid.ecx = (string[8]) | + (string[9] << 8) | (string[10] << 16) | (string[11] << 24);
Is this hunk (and similar) necessary? IMHO it doesn't violate the syntax and it's a bit nicer to read. [...]
diff --git a/src/nwfilter/nwfilter_dhcpsnoop.c b/src/nwfilter/nwfilter_dhcpsnoop.c index 350a8ec..2c0662f 100644 --- a/src/nwfilter/nwfilter_dhcpsnoop.c +++ b/src/nwfilter/nwfilter_dhcpsnoop.c @@ -1084,7 +1084,7 @@ virNWFilterSnoopDHCPOpen(const char *ifname, virMacAddr *mac,
virMacAddrFormat(mac, macaddr);
- if (dir == PCAP_D_IN /* from VM */) { + if (dir == PCAP_D_IN) /* from VM */) {
This change fails the build, remove one of the brackets [...] Just a question aside. We don't care about this kind of syntax? tools/virsh.h:197: bool (*handler) (vshControl *, const vshCmd *); I know it's even harder to algorithmically check this and I don't require it for this patch, I'm just curious. ACK with the nit fixed. But, please, after the rebase (probably tomorrow?), run the syntax-check and include all necessary changes to make it pass (in case there are any), thanks. Martin P.S.: Again, if anyone has a look at the second patch in this series, I'd appreciate that, since I'm not strong in perl. However if it doesn't get a review, I'll try to do what I can.