From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/10] devtools: prevent new instances of
 rte_panic and rte_exit
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:02:51 +0100
Message-ID: <3bc1745d-c294-4059-db60-b40387d89378@redhat.com>
References: <1524663944-30376-11-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com>
 <1524723664-30510-1-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com>
 <1524723664-30510-11-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com>
 <22f61f91-9755-520c-9ba1-d93a312a43e3@redhat.com>
 <CAKy9EB3EvFAyYqwGAF_U+phDTQB9HHW4uE7=V4MmGRAJYEbz4g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
 "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
 "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
 "Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
 jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, Bruce Richardson
 <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 dev@dpdk.org
To: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7101A72FB
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:02:54 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKy9EB3EvFAyYqwGAF_U+phDTQB9HHW4uE7=V4MmGRAJYEbz4g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 04/26/2018 10:57 PM, Arnon Warshavsky wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com
> <mailto:ktraynor@redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I think the first line of the commit msg ^^^ should change as it no
>     longer prevents but just warns
> 
> Actually the return value did not change, only the warning text did.

So will it fail checkpatch in patchwork? I agree with Aaron and Anatoly
that patches with rte_panic/exit should flag some warning message, but
the maintainer should have final say. I don't think failing checkpatch
is the solution for that.

> I would rather keep the word 'prevents' as an intention declaration that
> puts the fact that a panic is undesired first, and the technical ability
> of a maintainer to allow it second.

It's only words, but to me 'prevents' does not indicate that it is
undesirable - it indicates it is not allowed.

> This is just in terms of how one positions the usage of panic.
> 
>  
> 
>     > 
> 
>     Seems to drop the patch name if it finds a match
> 
> 
> Not sure I understand what you meant here. Can you please elaborate?
> 

Sure, I made a patch with an rte_panic and ran checkpatch on a bunch of
patches. It gave me the name of all the patches except the one with the
rte_panic.

> Thanks
> /Arnon
>