Very frankly, I don't think that a coding style, even strictly applied, is
going to make the QEMU code
easier to understand.

The real barriers to understanding are the lack of structure in the code,
liberal use of global macros
scattered randomly in the source code, exceedingly liberally named
functions, and sometimes obscure
implementation of simple concepts (*cough* CharDriverState), cramming
totally unrelated stuff in single
largish source files (vl.c for the win !), and a blatant lack of
documentation comments for a lot of subtle
stuff in there to explain the magic.

Braces and indentation are sometimes annoying, but frankly these are such
minor issues I wonder
why people waste their time venting about them given the source code's
state.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Laurent Desnogues <
laurent.desnogues@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Lennart Sorensen
> <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 04:15:14PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> >> With editors like emacs, this isn't an issue.
> >
> > Who gives a @#$ what emacs does.
>
> Ha at last!  vi was put in the original document, then someone mentions
> emacs and then some insults.  This finally becomes interesting.
>
>
> Laurent
>
>
>