From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [v7][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm
 policy parameters
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:29:44 +0800
Message-ID: <55A46608.5070908@intel.com>
References: <1436420047-25356-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>	<1436420047-25356-17-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>	<21918.48191.157583.452591@mariner.uk.xensource.com>	<559F60AB.2060402@intel.com>	<21919.40225.618413.570220@mariner.uk.xensource.com>	<55A38583.9080204@intel.com>	<1436780431.7019.54.camel@citrix.com>	<55A38B0F.1050608@intel.com>	<1436782646.7019.76.camel@citrix.com>
	<21923.61604.203298.653166@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <21923.61604.203298.653166@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 2015/7/14 1:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [v7][PATCH 16/16] tools: parse to enable new rdm policy parameters"):
>> On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 17:55 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
>>> So I can do this as you're expecting now, but seems our change would
>>> make the code style very inconsistent inside this function.
>
> You're right, it would, but I think that is what is called for.
>
>> I think one could make an argument that the exception described in the
>> first section of tools/libxl/CODING_STYLE applies here for the
>> whitespace issues, but not for the long lines I think.
>
> The wording of the exception is that:
>
>    If it is not feasible to conform fully to the style while patching old
>    code, without doing substantial style reengineering first, we may
>    accept patches which contain nonconformant elements, provided that
>    they don't make the coding style problem worse overall.
>
>    In this case, the new code should conform to the prevailing style in
>    the area being touched.
>
> In this case it is indeed feasible to conform fully to the new
> whitespace style for these added lines.  It leaves the code in this
> function in a mixture of styles, but that is not "infeasible".  It is

Okay. I'll follow the new code style.

Thanks
Tiejun

> merely undesriable, but so is adding more code in the wrong style.
>
> The sentence about new code conforming to the prevailing style applies
> only "in this case", ie, only if "it is not feasible ... to conform to
> the new style".
>
> Ian.
>