On 19/07/2019, 14:50, "Rich Persaud" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 2019, at 09:31, Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: >> On 19/07/2019 14:24, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi Tamas, >>> On 19/07/2019 14:14, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:11 AM Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Tamas, >>>> >>>>> On 19/07/2019 14:00, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 2:43 AM Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Tamas, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18/07/2019 18:48, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >>>>>>>> - Line 1025: The tools needs to be able to deal for_each_vcpu(...) & co. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These can be made OK by adding braces. Other than that the only way I >>>>>>> found to make it not change the indentation is to add the comment "/* >>>>>>> *INDENT-OFF* */" before the block and "/* *INDENT-ON* */" afterwards. >>>>>> >>>>>> None of them looks really appealing because it means astyle will not correctly >>>>>> indent if the user does not add braces or comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> Could astyle be easily modified to recognize foreach macros? >>>>> >>>>> Not that I'm aware of. If you don't want to manually annotate files >>>>> with unsupported macros then just exclude those files from astyle. I >>>>> wouldn't recommend adding this to the CI for all files, only for those >>>>> that their respective maintainers have confirmed to conform to the >>>>> style and want to enforce it going forward. >>>> >>>> So a couple use of an unsupported macros would make impossible to enforce the >>>> coding style. This is not a very ideal position to be in. >>>> >>>> _if_ we are going to adopt astyle then we need to be able to enforce it on every >>>> Xen files long-term. If it is not possible to do it with astyle, then maybe this >>>> is not the right tool to use. >>>> >>>> For instance, I know that tools such as clang-format is able to deal with >>>> foreach macros. >>> >>> If there are better tools then sure, I don't really mind using >>> something else. I just don't have time to do the manual style check >>> back-and-forth anymore, so the sooner we have something in place the >>> better. >> I totally agree we need a tool so the reviewer can free-up some time to focus on more important things. However, I think we should be careful on what we adopt here. >> Similar to Andrew, I am open with modifying the coding style to help the automatic style check. But I am not happy to disable automatic style on part (or entire) of files forever. >> At the moment, clang-format feels more powerful and there are people working on it. > > FYI, below a link to the clang-format changes: > > https://github.com/xen-troops/Xen-Clang-format/blob/devel/clang-format.patch Were these clang-format changes done for FuSa work? Are they intended to be run within OSStest and/or Xen's Gitlab CI, which do not currently support OpenEmbedded/Yocto and xen-troops? No, they were done following a discussion at a previous summit and then nothing moved for two years The idea was to avoid reviewers having to do mechanical tasks such as review styling It would be helpful to have a xen-devel thread on the motivation for the clang-format work, the specific style being enforced (including the nuances discussed in this thread) and additional work needed before clang-format can perform automated style checking to address (a) existing Xen/Linux style requirements, (b) FuSa requirements. Ultimately, we want to integrate this into the CIv2 we discussed and agreed at the summit. Aka an automatic style check triggered by a mailing list post alongside build checks and basic smoke tests on top of QEMU. I still need to get on top of the notes Lars P.S.: Sorry, catching up on mailing list and stuff after a 2 week trip _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel