From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: Solarflare PMD submission question Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:59:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <2553236.UbBGAtvXhx@xps13> References: <1695254.J03lBVJQtY@xps13> <2e666e61-bc4e-1a37-f26a-a0fc18a4d988@solarflare.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, ferruh.yigit@intel.com To: Andrew Rybchenko Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com (mail-wm0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A062934 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:59:12 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id g23so133904007wme.1 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:59:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2e666e61-bc4e-1a37-f26a-a0fc18a4d988@solarflare.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-11-21 11:46, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 11/21/2016 11:19 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> Before submitting 56 patches I'd like to double-check that checkpatch.pl > >> errors (for example, because of assignments in the 'if' condition, > >> parenthesis around return value) is not a show-stopper for base driver > >> import. > > You can run checkpatches.sh or send the patches to checkpatch@dpdk.org. > > The script check-git-log.sh can also guide you for the expected formatting. > > Yes, I did it and it helped me to find and fix some coding standard > violations. > > The problem with libefx (base driver) is that it is existing code which > follows FreeBSD and illumos coding conventions which contradict to > checkpatches.sh sometimes (e.g. require parenthesis around return > value). Other example of error produced by checkpatches.sh is assign in > if. It is widely used in the code to assign return code value and > compare it vs 0 in one line. It is not a coding standard conflict, but > it is very wide-spread in the code (so changing it will produce too many > changes not strictly required/useful). > > So, may I repeat my question if it is a show-stopper for base driver or > acceptable. I would vote to accept these minor style warnings for the base driver. Ferruh, any comment?