On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 08:05:43PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 04.12.2012 20:01, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:55:17PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> +static int parse_drive(DeviceState *dev, const char *str, void **ptr)
> >>> +{
> >>> + BlockDriverState *bs;
> >>> +
> >>> + bs = bdrv_find(str);
> >>> + if (bs == NULL)
> >>
> >> Please add braces, use checkpatch.pl.
> >>
> >>> + return -ENOENT;
> >>> + if (bdrv_attach_dev(bs, dev) < 0)
> >>
> >> Also here.
> >
> >
> > This is pure code movement, and I won't introduce changes in the code
> > while it is being moved to not make patch review harder.
>
> > If you want to send coding style patches for that code after it is
> > moved, be my guest.
>
> No. Patches are required to pass checkpatch.pl (i.e., + lines in the
> patch need braces). That means if not in the same patch for movement
> reasons, Coding Style cleanups need to be done in advance, not as
> followup. (same issue as in his AREG0 series)
I had the feeling that the amount of cleanup (included but not limited
to coding style changes) I was doing before introducing actual code
changes was making some of my series harder to review. If making coding
style changes first is preferred, I can do it. I will try to send v10 of
this series today.
>
> Andreas
>
> P.S. Dropping unrelated parts of the quotes makes requested changes
> easier to spot. There was a ditto hidden somewhere down. ;)
ACK. :)
--
Eduardo
