From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnon Warshavsky Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] devtools: add explicit warning messages for forbidden tokens Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 12:37:36 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1541138405-6608-1-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com> <4348558.Aku75RrXBD@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, john.mcnamara@intel.com, marko.kovacevic@intel.com To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mail-it1-f172.google.com (mail-it1-f172.google.com [209.85.166.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00E71B1EF for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 11:37:37 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-it1-f172.google.com with SMTP id p11-v6so1200203itf.0 for ; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 03:37:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4348558.Aku75RrXBD@xps> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > > > + message="Using explicit .svg extension in figures instead of .*" > > awk -v FOLDERS='doc' \ > > -v EXPRESSIONS='::[[:space:]]*[^[:space:]]*\\.svg' \ > > -v RET_ON_FAIL=1 \ > > + -v MESSAGE="$message" \ > > -f $(dirname $(readlink -e $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk > \ > > "$1" > > } > > Why using a variable for message in the second check? > > > This was to avoid the 80 characters long line warning I get. It also seems more convenient should there be a need for multi-line messages. Is there a more preferred way in such a case of a passed parameter?