On 8/23/21 11:35 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 23.08.21 11:28, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 10:20, David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23.08.21 10:54, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>> +static void mtree_print_as(gpointer key, gpointer value, gpointer
>>>> user_data)
>>>> +{
>>>> + MemoryRegion *mr = key;
>>>> + GSList *as_same_root_mr_list = value;
>>>> + struct AddressSpaceInfo *asi = user_data;
>>>
>>> Reverse Christmas tree?
I simply followed to order of the arguments as a no-brainer ;)
>> This has never been part of the QEMU style guidelines
>> and I would oppose our adding it. It would gain us very little,
>> the codebase doesn't consistently follow that rule today so
>> it wouldn't be preserving an existing consistency of style,
>> and it would be yet another weird stylistic issue that trips
>> people up and requires patch repins.
(in this particular case I've to respin for a typo).
> Ah right, it used very inconsistently in the QEMU codebase and even in
> this file (I spotted it's the case in the entry of mtree_info() and
> wondered if it's the case for this file -- turns out it's absolutely not).
