Re: [PATCH 02/11] hw/i386/pc: Use qdev_prop_set_array()

[Markus Armbruster]

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 17:42, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Am 11.09.2023 um 17:42 hat Peter Maydell geschrieben:
>> > On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 15:37, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Instead of manually setting "foo-len" and "foo[i]" properties, build a
>> > > QList and use the new qdev_prop_set_array() helper to set the whole
>> > > array property with a single call.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
>> > > ---
>> > >  hw/i386/pc.c | 8 +++++---
>> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c
>> > > index 54838c0c41..0e84e454cb 100644
>> > > --- a/hw/i386/pc.c
>> > > +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c
>> > > @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@
>> > >  #include "qapi/error.h"
>> > >  #include "qapi/qapi-visit-common.h"
>> > >  #include "qapi/qapi-visit-machine.h"
>> > > +#include "qapi/qmp/qlist.h"
>> > >  #include "qapi/visitor.h"
>> > >  #include "hw/core/cpu.h"
>> > >  #include "hw/usb.h"
>> > > @@ -1508,9 +1509,10 @@ static void 
>> > > pc_machine_device_pre_plug_cb(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev,
>> > >          char *resv_prop_str = 
>> > > g_strdup_printf("0xfee00000:0xfeefffff:%d",
>> > >                                                
>> > > VIRTIO_IOMMU_RESV_MEM_T_MSI);
>> > >
>> > > -        object_property_set_uint(OBJECT(dev), "len-reserved-regions", 
>> > > 1, errp);
>> > > -        object_property_set_str(OBJECT(dev), "reserved-regions[0]",
>> > > -                                resv_prop_str, errp);
>> > > +        QList *reserved_regions = qlist_new();
>> > > +        qlist_append_str(reserved_regions, resv_prop_str);
>> > > +        qdev_prop_set_array(dev, "reserved-regions", reserved_regions);
>> > > +
>> >
>> > The variable declaration should be at the top of the block;
>>
>> It is at the top of the block, the only thing before it is another
>> variable declaration. Would you prefer to have the empty line removed or
>> after the declaration to make this visually clearer?
>
> Sorry, I think I just misread the diff somehow. I guess that having
> the blank line after the variable declarations would be more usual,
> but it doesn't really matter.

I really like to have a blank line between declarations and statements,
because declaration vs. statement can be difficult to decide at a
glance, and the blank line convention helps.