Re: [PATCH v4 11/11] devtools: prevent new instances of rte_panic and rte_exit

From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
To: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>, Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/11] devtools: prevent new instances of rte_panic and rte_exit
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 16:41:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5db2ed20-646f-817d-b849-d57d68b8a2d2@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKy9EB2ThqF=qdxpQsKxVBJs9NG+RciV5Bdy8-7QW27vm8+DBA@mail.gmail.com>

On 20-Apr-18 3:01 PM, Arnon Warshavsky wrote:
> 
> 
>     I don't think rte_panic should be considered forbidden.  Rather their
>     use should be flagged (as this patch does).  However, the 'exit 1'
>     (which will return a failure for the automatic checkpatch script bot)
>     might end up problematic as maintainers might consider it a patch that
>     is not ready.
> 
>     I wouldn't object to this patch, but just think you might want to change
>     the print to something like:
> 
>        WARN: Are you sure you meant to use "$expression"?
> 
> 
> I can definitely change the warning text , but I think the whole point 
> is actually to prevent future panic calls.
> If it were a recommendation, one can never converge with the attempt to 
> get rid of them, as not throwing a panic is a lot harder.
> 
> Thanks
> Arnon
> 

Warning is enough to get it automatically flagged on review. Final 
decision is up to maintainers/committers as to whether accept such code.

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly