On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 01:48:34PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 08/31/2011 12:59 PM, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:06:11AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>On 08/31/2011 09:35 AM, malc wrote: > >>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>> > >>>>Upper case field names are not okay. If you think coding style isn't > >>>>clear, > >>>>that's a bug in coding style. > >>> > >>>Sez hu? Coding style is garbage that should be thrown out of the window. > >>>As for looking, yeah, i'm looking at usb with it's lovely hungarian > >>>fields, should we stampede to "fix" it? > >>> > >>>If the one who's going to maintain the code is fine with whatever naming > >>>is used so be it. > >> > >>No. That's how we got into the coding style mess we're in in the > >>first place. > > > >TBH, the codingstyle in QEMU is the least of "problems" we are facing. > >We've got lack of documentation, lack of tests, lack of contributors, > >etc, etc. IMO, those bring codingstyle issues into the pretty much > >neglectable space. > > I don't think we lack contributors. Documentation and tests are > really about discipline. If we can't even be bothered to maintain > consistency in variable naming, do you really expected that we can > be disciplined in writing documentation and tests?
Yes I do. It's not white and black, it's not about making the code completely inconsistent or 100 consistent. It's about find a level of consistency that is acceptable and doesn't cost too much to maintain. > Is the next argument going to be that every subsystem should be able > to have its documentation in it's preferred natural language such > that the documentation for the block layer is in Esperanto? Heh, I think you missunderstood me. I'm talking about details that dont matter. Like, would you like to enforce American english or UK english? More that kind of question. > Consistent coding style makes the tree a single code base, instead > of a bunch of independent islands. This encourages sharing code and > ideas across subsystems. Too often, we reproduce the same thing and > over again in different subsystems (and even different machine > architectures). I dont think the latter has to do with codingstyle consistensy. But I agree with the former. Cheers
