On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 01:14:20PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > Hi > > On 12.02.25 11:14, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 02:33:08PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > Hi Oleksandr, > > > > > > This morning, we had a discussion among maintainers, and the suggested > > > approach moving forward is as follows: > > > > > > - First, it would be helpful to see a sample of the proposed changes > > > applied to a single source file as an example. If you could provide > > > such a patch, it would help advance the discussion. > > > > > > - If the changes are acceptable, we need to properly document the new > > > coding style in xen.git. If not, we will need to iterate again. We may > > > also need to add a "xen" template to clang-format. > > > > > > - Once finalized, we will proceed by making changes to the Xen source > > > code piece by piece, as you suggested, rather than applying a single > > > large patch. > > > > No objections, just wandering myself whether it was considered to > > initially only apply the new style to new chunks of code? Using > > `git-clang-format` or similar as suggested by Anthony. > > > > Is the adjusted style expected to be too different from the current > > one as such approach would lead to hard to read code due to the mixed > > styles? > > Sorry for may be dumb question, but wouldn't it be reasonable to consider > adding just .clang-format specification to the Xen code base without > automation features?
Yes, ti can be considered, but I think part of the desire to have clang-format is so checking can be automated. In any case, even if checking is not initially automated, whatever rules are in .clang-format must be in-line with the coding style document. Otherwise the presence of .clang-format would just be misleading if the resulting generated format doesn't adhere to our coding style. Thanks, Roger.
