Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH REBASE/RESEND 1/4] qdev: Add a description field for qdev properties for documentation

[Markus Armbruster]

Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> writes:

> On 02/04/2011 12:18 AM, Amit Shah wrote:
>> Add a 'description' along with each qdev property to document the input
>> each qdev property takes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Amit Shah<address@hidden>
>> Acked-by: Markus Armbruster<address@hidden>
>> ---
[...]
>> diff --git a/block_int.h b/block_int.h
>> index 6ebdc3e..fdde005 100644
>> --- a/block_int.h
>> +++ b/block_int.h
>> @@ -250,15 +250,15 @@ static inline unsigned int 
>> get_physical_block_exp(BlockConf *conf)
>>   }
>>
>>   #define DEFINE_BLOCK_PROPERTIES(_state, _conf)                          \
>> -    DEFINE_PROP_DRIVE("drive", _state, _conf.bs),                       \
>> +    DEFINE_PROP_DRIVE("drive", _state, _conf.bs, ""),                   \
>>       DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("logical_block_size", _state,                    \
>> -                       _conf.logical_block_size, 512),                  \
>> +                       _conf.logical_block_size, 512, ""),              \
>>       DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("physical_block_size", _state,                   \
>> -                       _conf.physical_block_size, 512),                 \
>> -    DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("min_io_size", _state, _conf.min_io_size, 0),  \
>> -    DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("opt_io_size", _state, _conf.opt_io_size, 0),    \
>> -    DEFINE_PROP_INT32("bootindex", _state, _conf.bootindex, -1),        \
>> +                       _conf.physical_block_size, 512, ""),             \
>> +    DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("min_io_size", _state, _conf.min_io_size, 0, ""), \
>> +    DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("opt_io_size", _state, _conf.opt_io_size, 0, ""), \
>> +        DEFINE_PROP_INT32("bootindex", _state, _conf.bootindex, -1, ""), \
>>       DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("discard_granularity", _state, \
>> -                       _conf.discard_granularity, 0)
>> +                       _conf.discard_granularity, 0, "")
>>    
>
> This is pretty horribly ugly.  If we were going this, we should at
> least introduce new defines that include a documentation field and not
> just add empty documentation fields.

In my opinion, making missing documentation look horribly ugly is a very
desirable feature ;)