Re: Coding Style Review and Automation

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 01:14:20PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On 12.02.25 11:14, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 02:33:08PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > Hi Oleksandr,
> > > 
> > > This morning, we had a discussion among maintainers, and the suggested
> > > approach moving forward is as follows:
> > > 
> > > - First, it would be helpful to see a sample of the proposed changes
> > >    applied to a single source file as an example. If you could provide
> > >    such a patch, it would help advance the discussion.
> > > 
> > > - If the changes are acceptable, we need to properly document the new
> > >    coding style in xen.git. If not, we will need to iterate again. We may
> > >    also need to add a "xen" template to clang-format.
> > > 
> > > - Once finalized, we will proceed by making changes to the Xen source
> > >    code piece by piece, as you suggested, rather than applying a single
> > >    large patch.
> > 
> > No objections, just wandering myself whether it was considered to
> > initially only apply the new style to new chunks of code?  Using
> > `git-clang-format` or similar as suggested by Anthony.
> > 
> > Is the adjusted style expected to be too different from the current
> > one as such approach would lead to hard to read code due to the mixed
> > styles?
> 
> Sorry for may be dumb question, but wouldn't it be reasonable to consider
> adding just .clang-format specification to the Xen code base without
> automation features?

Yes, ti can be considered, but I think part of the desire to have
clang-format is so checking can be automated.

In any case, even if checking is not initially automated, whatever
rules are in .clang-format must be in-line with the coding style
document.  Otherwise the presence of .clang-format would just be
misleading if the resulting generated format doesn't adhere to our
coding style.

Thanks, Roger.