[libvirt] [PATCH v3 2/2] network: Add code for setting network bandwidth for ethernet interfaces

[Anirban Chakraborty]

On 10/10/14, 11:42 AM, "Anirban Chakraborty" <abchak at juniper.net> wrote:

>
>
>On 10/10/14, 11:13 AM, "Eric Blake" <eblake at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/10/2014 10:59 AM, Anirban Chakraborty wrote:
>>
>>> The list is really very long to put all in here. If we have to do what
>>>you
>>> suggested, then we¹d be changing all such usage of switch statements,
>>> which is not trivial, I believe.
>>
>>The point of adding it to HACKING is to encourage new code to abide by
>>the standard, and not necessarily to retrofit existing code.  And you
>>are correct that existing code doesn't always use enum type-safety
>>compiler guarantees - which makes the enum that much harder to modify
>>later if we ever add enum values.  But in some cases, it is fairly
>>obvious that we don't plan to add any enum values, in which case a
>>simple if statement or use of a default label is fine.  It's a
>>case-by-case judgment call of what makes the code easier to maintain.
>
>
>So, you are proposing not to touch the existing code but do it for all new
>code addition. I do not have any problem with that, except for the fact
>that this would bloat new code, which is equally important, IMHO. Should
>we bloat code to future proof coding error? If other folks think yes we
>should (in the context of this code), then I¹d be more than happy to swap
>the Œdefault¹ case with rest of the types of virDomainNetType.
>
>Anirban

Never mind, I’ll change the patch to include what you suggested. It has
come to a point that there is little technical value on either side of the
argument.

Anirban