On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 04:00:05PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:55:57PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:13:40AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> >> On 19 June 2015 at 11:07, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:00:53PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > >> >> >> In case NDEBUG is defined, assert() expands to nothing and > >> >> >> vhost_net_set_vnet_endian() doesn't get called... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Suggested-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> > >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gk...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >> >> > > >> >> > Not sure what the point is. > >> >> > We don't support building with NDEBUG. > >> >> > >> >> Putting functional behaviour inside an assert() is still a really > >> >> bad idea. If you're reading the code you probably skim over the > >> >> assert() as not functionally relevant... > >> >> > >> >> -- PMM > >> > > >> > I can apply this if commit log explains it's a readability > >> > enhancement, not a bugfix. > >> > >> Easy: > >> > >> vhost_net: fix misuse of assert() > >> > >> In case NDEBUG is defined, assert() expands to nothing and > >> vhost_net_set_vnet_endian() doesn't get called... > >> > >> Suggested-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gk...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >> > >> We don't support building with NDEBUG, but putting functional behaviour > >> inside an assert() is still a really bad idea. If you're reading the > >> code you probably skim over the assert() as not functionally relevant... > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> > > > > Pls submit v2 in the regular format - I can rewrite the commit log > > but prefer not to, as it doesn't scale. There's no need to add my > > signature though, git am -s does this automatically. > > I *hate* it when maintainers rewrite my commit message, then claim it's > mine :) > > But that's not what I suggested! I suggested to append the additional > explanation you want after Greg's S-o-B. Makes it obvious that it's > yours.
Well both the subject and the original commit log are irrelevant IMO: why mention NDEBUG when we don't support it? So it's not really a misuse. > I think that scales just fine in a simple case like this where you > already know the explanation.
