From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34220) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SCEEU-00039B-9x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:01:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SCEEP-00051K-DW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:01:29 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:49166) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SCEEP-00050P-5r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:01:25 -0400 Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so6292289obb.4 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:01:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4F70AB4A.8050000@codemonkey.ws> References: <1332727608-26523-1-git-send-email-liwp@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F70A8E2.10508@codemonkey.ws> <4F70AB4A.8050000@codemonkey.ws> From: Blue Swirl Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:01:03 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] refactor PC machine, i440fx and piix3 to take advantage of QOM List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori , Wanpeng Li , Avi Kivity , Gavin Shan On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 17:45, Anthony Liguori wrot= e: > On 03/26/2012 12:43 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 17:35, Anthony Liguori >> =C2=A0wrote: >>> >>> On 03/26/2012 12:09 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 02:06, Wanpeng Li >>>> =C2=A0wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Anthony Liguori >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This series aggressively refactors the PC machine initialization to b= e >>>>> more >>>>> modelled and less ad-hoc. =C2=A0The highlights of this series are: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please fix coding style while moving. >>> >>> >>> >>> I disagree. =C2=A0That makes reviewing the movement and rebasing the mo= vement >>> pretty difficult. >> >> >> Yes, a separate step would be nice. >> >>> If we were to fix the issues, it should before or after. =C2=A0But in t= hat >>> context, I think it makes it orthogonal to moving the code and should b= e >>> treated independently. >> >> >> I'd fix the style in the first patch, then perform moves etc. That way >> no patch would add noncompliant code, only remove. > > > Is this something we universally want to do? =C2=A0What would we do about= patches > to audio? I'd do it in cases when there is code movement, then git blame will not be very useful anyway and other people have to rebase their patches as well. The audio case has an additional factor, namely maintainer disagreeing with global style and consistency. There are several ways how to handle that case, one of which is to maintain status quo. > I'd prefer not to go down this road. =C2=A0Let's keep discussion of fixin= g > CODING_STYLE of existing code separate from rearchitecting/enhancing code= . When code is moved, rearchitected or enhanced, that would be a good point when to fix style too. Though this assumes that just fixing style without those events is evil, but is it? I think you have not been fully consistent in this matter. > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > >> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Anthony Liguori > >