[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v14 02/14] fixup! migration: New QAPI type 'MigrateAddress'
From: |
Fabiano Rosas |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v14 02/14] fixup! migration: New QAPI type 'MigrateAddress' |
Date: |
Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:07:25 -0300 |
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes:
> Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de> writes:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de>
>> ---
>> qapi/migration.json | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/qapi/migration.json b/qapi/migration.json
>> index c352c7ac52..602cb706e3 100644
>> --- a/qapi/migration.json
>> +++ b/qapi/migration.json
>> @@ -1519,10 +1519,25 @@
>> #
>> # @rdma: Migrate via RDMA.
>> #
>> +# @file: Direct the migration stream to a file.
>> +#
>> # Since 8.2
>> ##
>> { 'enum': 'MigrationAddressType',
>> - 'data': ['socket', 'exec', 'rdma'] }
>> + 'data': ['socket', 'exec', 'rdma', 'file'] }
>
> I don't like our use of spaces around parenthesis in the QAPI schema,
> but I like inconsistency even less: please insert a space after '['.
>
Yes. But,
a contributor today has to guess what is the preferred syntax. Could we
have a checkpatch rule for this? Or should I send a patch to make the
whole file consistent at once?
Side question: are we using valid JSON at all? I threw this in a random
online linter and it complains about the single quotes. We could have a
proper tool doing the validation in CI.
Re: [PATCH v14 02/14] fixup! migration: New QAPI type 'MigrateAddress', Daniel P . Berrangé, 2023/10/23
[PATCH v14 03/14] migration: convert migration 'uri' into 'MigrateAddress', Fabiano Rosas, 2023/10/19
[PATCH v14 04/14] fixup! migration: convert migration 'uri' into 'MigrateAddress', Fabiano Rosas, 2023/10/19
[PATCH v14 05/14] migration: convert socket backend to accept MigrateAddress, Fabiano Rosas, 2023/10/19