On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:39:49 +0200
Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01.09.2017 11:10, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> >>> static void test_drive_del_device_del(void)
> >>> {
> >>> + char *args;
> >>> +
> >>> /* Start with a drive used by a device that unplugs instantaneously
> >>> */
> >>> - qtest_start("-drive if=none,id=drive0,file=null-co://,format=raw"
> >>> - " -device virtio-scsi-pci"
> >>> - " -device scsi-hd,drive=drive0,id=dev0");
> >>> + args = g_strdup_printf("-drive
> >>> if=none,id=drive0,file=null-co://,format=raw"
> >>> + " -device virtio-scsi-%s"
> >>> + " -device scsi-hd,drive=drive0,id=dev0",
> >>
> >> Would look better with the spaces at the end of the previous line (so
> >> all "-device" are aligned), but just my taste.
> >
> > The -device *are* aligned, but I get what you mean.
> >
> > The advantage of leading rather than trailing space is that the
> > intention "this is still the same string" is locally obvious both at the
> > first part's end (no comma) and at the second part's beginning (leading
> > space).
>
> I don't mind either way, but in this case, I think I'd prefer to keep
> the original formatting with the space at the beginning, for the
> following two reasons:
>
> - The first line is already hitting the 80 columns limit, and I want to
> avoid complaints from checkpatch.pl
> - The original author formatted it that way.
I'd keep it that way as well.
