Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> writes:
> On 02/17/2011 07:06 AM, Amit Shah wrote:
>> On (Tue) 15 Feb 2011 [10:43:42], Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> #define DEFINE_BLOCK_PROPERTIES(_state, _conf) \
>>>> - DEFINE_PROP_DRIVE("drive", _state, _conf.bs), \
>>>> + DEFINE_PROP_DRIVE("drive", _state, _conf.bs, ""), \
>>>> DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("logical_block_size", _state, \
>>>> - _conf.logical_block_size, 512), \
>>>> + _conf.logical_block_size, 512, ""), \
>>>> DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("physical_block_size", _state, \
>>>> - _conf.physical_block_size, 512), \
>>>> - DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("min_io_size", _state, _conf.min_io_size, 0), \
>>>> - DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("opt_io_size", _state, _conf.opt_io_size, 0), \
>>>> - DEFINE_PROP_INT32("bootindex", _state, _conf.bootindex, -1), \
>>>> + _conf.physical_block_size, 512, ""), \
>>>> + DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("min_io_size", _state, _conf.min_io_size, 0, ""), \
>>>> + DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("opt_io_size", _state, _conf.opt_io_size, 0, ""), \
>>>> + DEFINE_PROP_INT32("bootindex", _state, _conf.bootindex, -1, ""), \
>>>> DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("discard_granularity", _state, \
>>>> - _conf.discard_granularity, 0)
>>>> + _conf.discard_granularity, 0, "")
>>>>
>>> This is pretty horribly ugly. If we were going this, we should at
>>> least introduce new defines that include a documentation field and
>>> not just add empty documentation fields.
>>>
>> We've discussed this in the past. Once this patch series gets in,
>> I'll work to fill in the documentation here along with the
>> maintainers.
>>
>
> It means you're touching everything twice instead of touching
> everything once. That's unnecessary churn and blame breakage.
>
> It's still just as greppable if you use a new name.
What names would you suggest? DEFINE_PROP_<FOO>_WITH_DOCS()? For all
fifteen <FOO>s? Not a good idea, because the longer name makes doing
the right thing even less attractive. We better encourage doing the
right thing.
