From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drivers: prefix driver REGISTER macro
	with RTE PMD
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:46:19 +0530
Message-ID: <694d60e1-ccf2-9501-e19f-d8b7417af5ef@nxp.com>
References: <1475949668-26829-1-git-send-email-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
 <184506162.Hjg7Xy8FWv@xps13>
 <DB5PR0401MB205405EE94FDB4A25437138290D80@DB5PR0401MB2054.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <4525292.xovB97rfbE@xps13> <de52ed62-59e5-6f14-6e58-866f04da43db@nxp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "david.marchand@6wind.com" <david.marchand@6wind.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "nhorman@tuxdriver.com" <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-by2nam03on0074.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.42.74])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56C75680
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:15:29 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <de52ed62-59e5-6f14-6e58-866f04da43db@nxp.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://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: <http://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 Monday 10 October 2016 10:41 AM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> On Monday 10 October 2016 01:20 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 2016-10-09 15:12, Shreyansh Jain:
>>> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
>>>> 2016-10-08 23:35, Shreyansh Jain:
>>>>> +PMDINFO_TO_O = if grep -E 'RTE_PMD_REGISTER_PCI\([0-9a-zA-Z,_\.
>>>> ]+\)|RTE_PMD_REGISTER_VDEV\([0-9a-zA-Z,_\. ]+\)' $<;\
>>>>> +       then \
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand why you don't simply grep 'RTE_PMD_REGISTER_.*(' ?
>>>
>>> Because I want to make sure that the grep matches only the DRIVER
>>> registration functions.
>>> In case a new macro (or driver type) is added in future, this macro
>>> can be updated. This way we can reduce the probability of a faulty
>>> match.
>>>
>>> Is there a problem with closest possible match?
>>
>> It is just long and useless. A macro starting with RTE_PMD_REGISTER_ must
>> be called from a PMD. What else?
>
> Long, yes. But I don't know why you state it as useless. Reducing
> probability of a false positive is what it does.
>
> Anyways, I will send a v3 with "grep -Eq 'DRIVER_REGISTER_.*\(.*\)'".

I meant "grep -q 'RTE_PMD_REGISTER_.*(.*)'".
Minimal changes from existing.

-
Shreyansh