On 7/16/21 3:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 12.07.2021 22:32, Daniel P. Smith wrote: >> With the elimination of switching how dummy.h gets included, the function >> declaration macros are no longer necessary. This commit expands them out to >> the >> only value for which they will ever be set. This results in function >> declaration lengths changing and since some definitions did not even follow >> the >> 80 column wrapping style, all function definitions were aligned with the >> predominate style found in core hypervisor code. > > I'm afraid this last half sentence is quite far from true:
I would disagree since I know I went through the frustration of trying to find a discernible consistency in the files in common/ in the end I settled on following common/memory.c since it seemed to have the most uniform, it had only a couple of anomalies, as opposed to other files where indentation was varied throughout. >> @@ -82,43 +79,43 @@ static always_inline int xsm_default_action( >> } >> } >> >> -static XSM_INLINE void dummy_security_domaininfo(struct domain *d, >> +static inline void dummy_security_domaininfo(struct domain *d, >> struct xen_domctl_getdomaininfo *info) > > Padding wasn't good here before, but you clearly do not change it to > either of the forms we agreed on as being the goal for consistency: Then that agreement should be document as CODING_STYLE only states: Line Length ----------- Lines should be less than 80 characters in length. Long lines should be split at sensible places and the trailing portions indented. I found that in common/memory.c the predominate style was to align parameters with the first parameter when wrapping, which is what I followed. In this specific case when I wrapped the second parameter to make the line less than 80 chars (an explicit rule in CODING_STYLE) and attempted to align with the first paramter resulted in the line exceeding 80 chars. Since the only hard rule is lines must be less than 80, I decreased the indent by enough characters for the line to be less than 80 to be in line with CODING_STYLE since it only calls for sensible splits that are indented. > static inline void dummy_security_domaininfo(struct domain *d, > struct xen_domctl_getdomaininfo > *info) > > or > > static inline void dummy_security_domaininfo( > struct domain *d, > struct xen_domctl_getdomaininfo *info) > I will align to the second, even though I find it annoying to switch alignment styles, since the first would be in violation of CODING_STYLE sine the second line would exceed 80 chars >> -static XSM_INLINE int dummy_domain_create(XSM_DEFAULT_ARG struct domain *d, >> u32 ssidref) >> +static inline int dummy_domain_create(struct domain *d, u32 ssidref) > > When you have to touch lines anyway, may I suggest that you also take > the opportunity and convert u<N> to uint<N>_t, to bring this file > better in line with ./CODING_STYLE? Sure. v/r, dps
