From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/10] devtools: prevent new instances of
 rte_panic and rte_exit
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 09:23:37 +0300
Message-ID: <CAKy9EB2KNMKQf44t5JfcTO7DvzwgEoKOeVSvD7XaJ3J8fDT6NA@mail.gmail.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>
 <3bc1745d-c294-4059-db60-b40387d89378@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com (mail-io0-f173.google.com
 [209.85.223.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858C03DC
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 29 Apr 2018 08:23:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id e12-v6so6940768iob.8
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 28 Apr 2018 23:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3bc1745d-c294-4059-db60-b40387d89378@redhat.com>
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>

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.
>
Ok. will leave that to the maintainers and change that not to fail


> > 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.
>
They say words create reality, but since we agreed on reality, I'll reword
:)

>
> > 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.
>
> Got it now. I wasn't using -v .Will fix
Thanks
/Arnon
--