From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Rybchenko Subject: Re: Solarflare PMD submission question Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 18:03:26 +0300 Message-ID: <9ebf317d-648d-68ac-6d51-eb4e5cdd4e81@solarflare.com> References: <1695254.J03lBVJQtY@xps13> <2e666e61-bc4e-1a37-f26a-a0fc18a4d988@solarflare.com> <2553236.UbBGAtvXhx@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: To: Ferruh Yigit , Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from nbfkord-smmo01.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo01.seg.att.com [209.65.160.76]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18292590E for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:17:36 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: 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" On 11/21/2016 01:30 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 11/21/2016 8:59 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >> 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? >> > For _base driver_, I am also OK for having checkpatch warnings. In term of checkpatshes.sh return value in parenthesis is an error (not warning). Hopefully it changes nothing. Andrew.