On 18.02.2025 03:36, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.02.2025 11:21, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>> 1. Const string arrays reformatting
>>> In case the length of items change we might need to introduce a bigger
>>> change wrt new formatting of unaffected lines
>>> ==============================================================================
>>>
>>> --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/tables.c
>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/tables.c
>>> @@ -38,10 +38,10 @@
>>> -static const char *__initdata
>>> -mps_inti_flags_polarity[] = { "dfl", "high", "res", "low" };
>>> -static const char *__initdata
>>> -mps_inti_flags_trigger[] = { "dfl", "edge", "res", "level" };
>>> +static const char *__initdata mps_inti_flags_polarity[] = { "dfl", "high",
>>> + "res", "low" };
>>> +static const char *__initdata mps_inti_flags_trigger[] = { "dfl", "edge",
>>> "res",
>>>
>>> --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/utilities/utglobal.c
>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/utilities/utglobal.c
>>> static const char *const
>>> acpi_gbl_region_types[ACPI_NUM_PREDEFINED_REGIONS] = {
>>> - "SystemMemory",
>>> - "SystemIO",
>>> - "PCI_Config",
>>> - "EmbeddedControl",
>>> - "SMBus",
>>> - "CMOS",
>>> - "PCIBARTarget",
>>> - "DataTable"
>>> + "SystemMemory", "SystemIO", "PCI_Config", "EmbeddedControl",
>>> + "SMBus", "CMOS", "PCIBARTarget", "DataTable"
>>> };
>>
>> Why in the world would a tool need to touch anything like the two examples
>> above? My take is that the code is worse readability-wise afterwards.
>
> I think the output is acceptable: not necessarily better than before,
> but also not significantly worse.
Hmm, for the change to xen/drivers/acpi/tables.c I wouldn't agree with this
statement. And for xen/drivers/acpi/utilities/utglobal.c remember that this
is code taken from ACPI CA, which we may better not re-format.
> To me, the main takeaway is that there
> are many unavoidable but unnecessary changes.
Interesting. I'd say it slightly differently: The main takeaway is that
there are many avoidable / unnecessary changes.
Jan
