From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10] devtools: alert on new instances of
 rte_panic and rte_exit
Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 23:34:19 +0300
Message-ID: <CAKy9EB2oeVFHW+mDY++ggf0z=hsmH+0Qwjg8FJevVm_cuNR=5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1524723664-30510-11-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com>
 <1525070752-21085-1-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com> <5254321.ZC84c43z8L@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "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>, Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-it0-f50.google.com (mail-it0-f50.google.com
 [209.85.214.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A262C54
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 27 May 2018 22:34:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-it0-f50.google.com with SMTP id z6-v6so12647285iti.4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 27 May 2018 13:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5254321.ZC84c43z8L@xps>
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>

This is consuming stdin.
> I guess the checkpatch.pl will have nothing to check in the next step.
> We should merge Neil's patch first, because he is adding a tmpfile
> to solve the issue of stdin read only once.
>

Yup. Missed the fact stdin is consumed. temp file is a good idea

>
> > +             [ $? -eq 0 ] || return 0
>
> This test looks reversed: if the result is not 0, we should not return 0.
> And by the way, I think it is better to continue with other checks.
> Neil's patch is setting ret=1, continue and return at the end.
>
> >               report=$($DPDK_CHECKPATCH_PATH $options - 2>/dev/null)
>

As it was agreed that this check should only warn and not fail the tests,
The actual situation is that the function check_forbidden_additions()
always returns zero.
Once Neils patch is in, I can align to the return value propagation,
but the current code never fails  (that may change of course for future
different tokens)


thanks
/Arnon