Re: [PATCH-for-6.2? 1/3] docs/devel/style: Improve GLib functions rST rendering

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 11/18/21 11:58, Darren Kenny wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
> 
> There are some inconsistencies in the use of '()' when referring to
> functions or macros below...

Daniel, if you agree with Darren comments I can respin addressing them.

> On Tuesday, 2021-11-16 at 16:13:15 +01, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  docs/devel/style.rst | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/docs/devel/style.rst b/docs/devel/style.rst
>> index 260e3263fa0..415a6b9d700 100644
>> --- a/docs/devel/style.rst
>> +++ b/docs/devel/style.rst
>> @@ -413,13 +413,14 @@ multiple exist paths you can also improve the 
>> readability of the code
>>  by using ``g_autofree`` and related annotations. See :ref:`autofree-ref`
>>  for more details.
>>  
>> -Calling ``g_malloc`` with a zero size is valid and will return NULL.
>> +Calling ``g_malloc`` with a zero size is valid and will return ``NULL``.
>>
> 
> g_malloc() ?
> 
>>  
>>  Prefer ``g_new(T, n)`` instead of ``g_malloc(sizeof(T) * n)`` for the 
>> following
>>  reasons:
>>  
>> -* It catches multiplication overflowing size_t;
>> -* It returns T ``*`` instead of void ``*``, letting compiler catch more 
>> type errors.
>> +* It catches multiplication overflowing ``size_t``;
>> +* It returns ``T *`` instead of ``void *``, letting compiler catch more type
>> +  errors.
>>  
>>  Declarations like
>>  
>> @@ -444,14 +445,14 @@ use this similar function when possible, but note its 
>> different signature:
>>  
>>      void pstrcpy(char *dest, int dest_buf_size, const char *src)
>>  
>> -Don't use strcat because it can't check for buffer overflows, but:
>> +Don't use ``strcat`` because it can't check for buffer overflows, but:
>>
> 
> strcat() ?
> 
>>  
>>  .. code-block:: c
>>  
>>      char *pstrcat(char *buf, int buf_size, const char *s)
>>  
>> -The same limitation exists with sprintf and vsprintf, so use snprintf and
>> -vsnprintf.
>> +The same limitation exists with ``sprintf`` and ``vsprintf``, so use
> 
> sprintf() and vsprintf()?
> 
>> +``snprintf`` and ``vsnprintf``.
>>
> 
> snprintf() and vsnprintf()?
> 
>>  
>>  QEMU provides other useful string functions:
>>  
>> @@ -464,8 +465,8 @@ QEMU provides other useful string functions:
>>  There are also replacement character processing macros for isxyz and toxyz,
>>  so instead of e.g. isalnum you should use qemu_isalnum.
>>
> 
> Should this be isalnum() and qemu_isalnum()?
> 
>>  
>> -Because of the memory management rules, you must use g_strdup/g_strndup
>> -instead of plain strdup/strndup.
>> +Because of the memory management rules, you must use ``g_strdup/g_strndup``
>>
> 
> Wonder should this be ``g_strdup()``/``g_strndup()``
> 
>> +instead of plain ``strdup/strndup``.
>>
> 
> And ``strdup()``/``strndup()``
> 
>>  
>>  Printf-style functions
>>  ======================
>> @@ -524,10 +525,10 @@ automatic cleanup:
>>  
>>  Most notably:
>>  
>> -* g_autofree - will invoke g_free() on the variable going out of scope
>> +* ``g_autofree`` - will invoke ``g_free()`` on the variable going out of 
>> scope
>>
> 
> g_autofree() ?
> 
>>  
>> -* g_autoptr - for structs / objects, will invoke the cleanup func created
>> -  by a previous use of G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC. This is
>> +* ``g_autoptr`` - for structs / objects, will invoke the cleanup func 
>> created
>>
> 
> g_autoptr() ?
> 
>> +  by a previous use of ``G_DEFINE_AUTOPTR_CLEANUP_FUNC``. This is
>>    supported for most GLib data types and GObjects
>>  
>>  For example, instead of
>> @@ -551,7 +552,7 @@ For example, instead of
>>          return ret;
>>      }
>>  
>> -Using g_autofree/g_autoptr enables the code to be written as:
>> +Using ``g_autofree/g_autoptr`` enables the code to be written as:
>>
> 
> ``g_autofree()``/``g_autoptr()`` ?
> 
>>  
>>  .. code-block:: c
>>  
>> @@ -569,13 +570,13 @@ Using g_autofree/g_autoptr enables the code to be 
>> written as:
>>  While this generally results in simpler, less leak-prone code, there
>>  are still some caveats to beware of
>>  
>> -* Variables declared with g_auto* MUST always be initialized,
>> +* Variables declared with ``g_auto*`` MUST always be initialized,
>>
> 
> g_auto*() ?
> 
>>    otherwise the cleanup function will use uninitialized stack memory
>>  
>> -* If a variable declared with g_auto* holds a value which must
>> +* If a variable declared with ``g_auto*`` holds a value which must
>>
> 
> g_auto*() ?
> 
>>    live beyond the life of the function, that value must be saved
>>    and the original variable NULL'd out. This can be simpler using
>> -  g_steal_pointer
>> +  ``g_steal_pointer``
>>
> 
> g_steal_pointer() ?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Darren.
>