On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:14:39PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Daniel P. Berrangé (berra...@redhat.com) wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:59:33AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:33:57PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > > * no-re...@patchew.org (no-re...@patchew.org) wrote: > > > > > Patchew URL: > > > > > https://patchew.org/QEMU/20191021105832.36574-1-dgilb...@redhat.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > This series seems to have some coding style problems. See output > > > > > below for > > > > > more information: > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 00/30] virtiofs daemon (base) > > > > > Type: series > > > > > Message-id: 20191021105832.36574-1-dgilb...@redhat.com > > > > > > > > > > === TEST SCRIPT BEGIN === > > > > > #!/bin/bash > > > > > git rev-parse base > /dev/null || exit 0 > > > > > git config --local diff.renamelimit 0 > > > > > git config --local diff.renames True > > > > > git config --local diff.algorithm histogram > > > > > ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --mailback base.. > > > > > > > > Expecting checkpatch to be broken here; most of the files > > > > follow FUSE's formatting. > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > I wonder what do others think about this. > > > One problem with such inconsistencies is that people tend to copy code > > > around, which tends to result in a mess. > > > > IIUC, most of this code is simpy copied as-is from the fuse or linux > > git repos. I'm wondering what the intention is for it long term ? > > > > For header files, I would have expected us to be able to compile against > > the -devel package provided by the kernel or fuse packages. I can > > understand if we want to import the headers if the VSOCK additions to > > them are not yet widely available in distros though. If this is the case > > we should put a time limit on how long we'd keep these copied headers > > around for before dropping them. It would be fine to violate QEMU coding > > style in this case as its not code QEMU would "maintain" long term - just > > a read-only import. > > The headers are really two types; one are external definitions, the > other are internal parts of libfuse. I'd expect to keep the internal > parts long term; teh external parts hmm; where would we pull them in > externally from? > > > The source files though, we appear to then be modifying locally, which > > suggests they'll live in our repo forever. In this case I'd expect to > > have compliance with QEMU coding standards. > > OK. > > > I'm surprised we need to copy so much in from fuse though. Is there a > > case to be made for fuse to provide a library of APIs for people who > > are building fuse daemons to link against, instead of copy & fork ? > > libfuse *is* such a library; but it preserves ABI compliance; it's > intention is to be used to build filesystem implementations on top of - > and that's got a fairly good separation; however changing the fuse > transport, and security models is much more invasive than it was > designed for. > > Dave
I guess you did try to propose adding the functionality to the libfuse maintainer and got rejected? If not it's worth asking. > > Regards, > > Daniel > > -- > > |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange > > :| > > |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com > > :| > > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange > > :| > -- > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
