Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> writes: > On 08/17/2010 03:04 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> On 08/13/10 20:02, Blue Swirl wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho >>> <miguel.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The existing code that I have touched don't follow the current coding >>>> style guidance, much less all the new recommendations being suggested. >>>> >>>> Although, I do believe that this situation needs to change. If we >>>> agree in a coding style, I would volunteer to be a some kind of >>>> observer to fix and alert people about coding styles mistakes. >>>> >>> I fully agree on the need of change and support your excellent idea. >>> There are other ways to solve the problem, but I believe we need more >>> order than more chaos. Perhaps we the QEMU developers should appoint >>> you the Guardian of the CODING_STYLE, and add a rule that no patch >>> shall be committed without your CS-Acked-by line? >>> >> I don't think this would ever work, it is begging for trouble relying on >> one person to review all patches for this. >> >> While I agree coding style is good since it enforces consistency, there >> are plenty problems with the old rules > > To be perfectly honest, we have enough hard problems to solve in QEMU. > We're spending a lot more time on coding style than we probably need > to :-)
In my not so humble opinion, that's because the current CODING_STYLE is idiosyncratic, widely disliked (follows from idiosyncratic pretty much inevitably), widely violated by existing code, and only haphazardly enforced for new code. I'd support switching to Linux kernel style. Then we can point people complaining about it to Linux (good luck getting it changed there), use Linux's tools to check for compliance (beats building our own), and move on to more productive issues.
