* Daniel P. Berrangé (berra...@redhat.com) wrote: > 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 fuse3-devel RPM on Fedora has some, but not all, of the fuse headers > the patches copy in. Not sure if that's enough though.
No, that's the public API, not the internals which we're poking at. > The kernel-devel RPM has fuse.h which seems to match fuse_kernel.h header > being imported. We do require that we have one that's new enough, so in future it might be possible; but we're currently using very new parts of fuse. (It's also not obvious whether the kernel or libfuse owns the 'newest' version of that header; we think it's probably the kernel). > Obviously that would mean a configure check to see if the required > headers exist or not & are new enough for VSOCK Dave > > 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
