[PATCH v3 01/14] domain_conf: move boot timeouts check to domain_validate.c

[Daniel Henrique Barboza]

On 12/9/20 7:52 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 07:35:09AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/9/20 5:13 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> On 12/8/20 11:20 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>>>> This patch creates a new function, virDomainDefBootValidate(), to host
>>>> the validation of boot menu timeout and rebootTimeout outside of parse
>>>> time. The checks in virDomainDefParseBootXML() were changed to throw
>>>> VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR in case of parse error of those values.
>>>>
>>>> In an attempt to alleviate the amount of code being stacked inside
>>>> domain_conf.c, let's put this new function in a new domain_validate.c
>>>> file that will be used to place these validations.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn at redhat.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413 at gmail.com>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/conf/domain_validate.c b/src/conf/domain_validate.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000000..e4d947c553
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/src/conf/domain_validate.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * domain_validate.c: domain general validation functions
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Copyright IBM Corp, 2020
>>>
>>> Honestly, I have only vague idea how these Copyright lines work, but shouldn't they also include (at least subset) of the lines from the original file? I mean, my common sense tells me that if I have a file written by person X, and later the file is split into two the person X is still the original author. Extending that, if a company holds a copyright on a file then moving bits out to a different file should keep the copyright. But I admit that law has completely different model of "common sense". And also there is a disconnection between files and these Copyright lines. If a copyright holder Y changed a tiny bit that is not moved - should their Copyright line also appear in the new file?
>>
>> TBH I have no idea what's the best practice here. What I did was simply
>> copy the Copyright header from qemu_validate.c. I believe I can add
>> a "This file was based on src/qemu/qemu_validate.c", since the inspiration
>> is quite obvious in this case, right after the legal text. I see some
>> people doing this in QEMU.
> 
> If you're copying code from one file to a new file, then the simplest way
> is to copy the existing copyright headers unchanged.
> 
> Not copying a copyright header would require you to audit the history of
> the code to determine whether it is valid to exclude them. This is usually
> a waste of time, so preserving the full existing copyright headers is normal
> practice for sake of speed.
> 
> You can then optionally also add new copyright lines if you're also making
> code changes after the copy.
> 
>> I see people putting copyright nominal in their own name as well. I guess
>> this means that the original author wasn't bind to a company contract by
>> the time the file was created or something like that. I am not sure about
>> the implications of having a copyright in your own name, aside from people
>> emailing you to ask for a license change (Linus and the GPLv3 versus LGPLv2
>> comes to mind).
> 
> A combination of your country's laws, and your employer's rules generally
> determine whether copyright statements have to be in your name or your
> employer's name. Most commonly it is your employer's name, as most
> companies require their employees to assign copyright on all their work
> as part of terms of employment. There are exceptions though, so I can't
> explicitly say what is right for you personally.

Thanks for the info. Just double checked internally and my case is the most
most common scenario (copyright is in the employer's name). So it's all
good.


DHB



> 
> Regards,
> Daniel
>