On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 06:24:03PM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 18:24:03 +0200
> From: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] target/s390x/kvm/pv: Consolidate
> OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE_WITH_INTERFACES
>
> On Wed, 14 May 2025, Zhao Liu wrote:
> > > > +OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE_WITH_INTERFACES(S390PVGuest,
> > > > + s390_pv_guest,
> > > > + S390_PV_GUEST,
> > > > + CONFIDENTIAL_GUEST_SUPPORT,
> > > > + { TYPE_USER_CREATABLE },
> > > > + { NULL })
> > >
> > > I'll note that existing callers of
> > > OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE_WITH_INTERFACES
> > > happily ignore the line limit and put it into a single line.
> > >
> > > (which ends up looking better IMHO)
> >
> > Ok, I'll onor the existing conventions (which I'll apply to other
> > patches as well).
>
> There are two line limits. If something is clearer on one line you could
> exceed the normal 80 chars and put up to 90 chars on one line for which
> checkpatch will issue a warning that can be ignored for these cases. Over 90
> lines checkpatch will give an error and I think you should not ignore that.
Thank you. This makes sense!
> Maybe try to put as much on one line as possible instead of new line after
> each argument but without exceeding the 80 chars or if the whole line fits
> in 90 chars then use that. Or maybe do not indent second line under ( but
> with 4 spaces then you can fit it in two lines but lines over 90 chars are
> undesirable.
HMM, I understand you mean:
OBJECT_DEFINE_SIMPLE_TYPE_WITH_INTERFACES(S390PVGuest, s390_pv_guest,
S390_PV_GUEST, CONFIDENTIAL_GUEST_SUPPORT, { TYPE_USER_CREATABLE }, { NULL
})
The second line is 82 chars and now I think this version is better.
Thanks,
Zhao
