Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Add support for r6040 NIC

[Blue Swirl]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Edgar E. Iglesias
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 08/31/2011 09:35 AM, malc wrote:
>> >On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> >
>> >>Upper case field names are not okay.  If you think coding style isn't 
>> >>clear,
>> >>that's a bug in coding style.
>> >
>> >Sez hu? Coding style is garbage that should be thrown out of the window.
>> >As for looking, yeah, i'm looking at usb with it's lovely hungarian
>> >fields, should we stampede to "fix" it?
>> >
>> >If the one who's going to maintain the code is fine with whatever naming
>> >is used so be it.
>>
>> No.  That's how we got into the coding style mess we're in in the
>> first place.
>
> TBH, the codingstyle in QEMU is the least of "problems" we are facing.
> We've got lack of documentation, lack of tests, lack of contributors,
> etc, etc. IMO, those bring codingstyle issues into the pretty much
> neglectable space.

The issues you mention are real, but problems in those areas do not
make the case for consistency invalid. We could also make rules for
documentation. For example, must use doxygen decorations for APIs,
must add a file under docs/apis/ when adding an API, must convert old
APIs when adding new ones etc.

Another way would be to downscale the project to match the resources,
we should throw away code which is not maintained and then focus on
the good parts.

> I think we should throw out everything from CS beyond the details of
> spaces and braces. Maybe keep the 80 char limit.

I disagree, those rules try to make the code consistent. I don't care
much what is the standard (could be Linux kernel style for example),
but maintaining the style improves readability and maintainability of
the code.

> We should ofcourse refer to the C and other specs regarding correctness,
> like the _t thing, but those are not really stylistic issues. Those are
> bugs.
>
> my 5 cents
>
> Cheers
>
>