From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: tools brainstorming Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:54:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20150414145410.GD3296@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <3571725.20GtF5MAnU@xps13> <20150414142153.GA3296@bricha3-MOBL3> <20150414143817.GA11180@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <12427242.1PjL83oBG2@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12427242.1PjL83oBG2@xps13> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 04:47:47PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-04-14 10:38, Neil Horman: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 03:21:53PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 07:54:40PM +0000, Butler, Siobhan A wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 5:16 PM > > > > > To: Wiles, Keith; Butler, Siobhan A > > > > > Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming > > > > > > > > > > 2015-04-08 15:53, Wiles, Keith: > > > > > > One of the biggest problems with any style is helping the developer > > > > > > maintain the style. Using some tool does help and I have used astyle > > > > > > before, not bad code formatter. Here is a few that seem to be reasonable. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://astyle.sourceforge.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > http://uncrustify.sourceforge.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/gcgreatcode/ > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure it's a good idea to convert the codebase automatically. > > > > > The coding style must be a reference for new patches and they must be > > > > > automatically checked with a dedicated checkpatch tool. > > > > > By forbidding patches which don't comply, the codebase will be naturally > > > > > converted over time. > > > > > > > > > > I didn't review this proposal yet. > > > > > My first comment is that it's too long to read :) When a consensus is done, it > > > > > must be added with a patch with custom checkpatch addition. > > > > Thanks Thomas, agreed it is a bit of a novel :)- I will refactor with the comments supplied so far and post a fresh version tomorrow. > > > > Siobhan > > > > > > > > > > Just wondering here, are we looking to codify what the current predominant coding > > > style in DPDK *is* or what it *should be*? > > > > > > There has been some good discussion on a variety of areas, but if we focus on > > > initially codifying what's there now, some issues become easier to resolve - > > > e.g. discussion of commenting style, since only C89 comments are allowed right now. > > > > > > > This is an excellent question. I think the answer is we should make the style > > what we want it to be. That said, when there is a significant discrepancy behind > > what is wanted and what is, we need to stop and ask ourselves why that exists, > > and what our reasoning is for wanting the change. > > Yes the question must be asked. > I think the main goal is to have a consistent style. > As there is already a lot of code with implicit guidelines, > it's simpler to make them official. > Sounds good to me. Let's document what we have, then evolve it as necessary. :-)