On 01/25/2013 04:11 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 25.01.2013 10:56, schrieb Alexander Graf: >> >> Am 25.01.2013 um 10:47 schrieb Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de>: >> >>> Am 25.01.2013 00:04, schrieb Jesse Larrew: >>>> >>>> Reformat the option parsing code in main() and various supporting functions >>>> to conform to the QEMU coding style. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jesse Larrew <jlar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>> --- >>>> vl.c | 476 >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------ >>>> 1 file changed, 260 insertions(+), 216 deletions(-) >>> >>> On a brief look this doesn't look wrong. What is the purpose of this >>> patch though? Is it intended for the s390x SCLP patch to be rebased >>> upon, or is it preparing some other actual refactoring or addition? >>> We don't usually do pure Coding Style refactorings without follow-ups. >> >> We only don't do it because nobody wanted to sit down and actually convert >> the code to adhere to the "new" coding style guidelines. > > That's not true. Pure Coding Style refactorings have been rejected in > the past for unnecessarily clobbering git-blame history, therefore my > question. >
I don't have any specific follow-up patches planned. I was just looking to pick some low-hanging fruit in order to familiarize myself with the code base. I hadn't considered the impact on git-blame history though. I can hang on to this patch until I have a real reason to edit vl.c, if that would be easier. Thanks for the review! >> I think it's a great idea to fix vl.c's coding style once and for all. > > No objection here. I also need to do some reindentations for my CPUState > refactorings that I could send out. > > Andreas > Jesse Larrew Software Engineer, KVM Team IBM Linux Technology Center Phone: (512) 973-2052 (T/L: 363-2052) jlar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
