From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: Solarflare PMD submission question Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:30:39 +0000 Message-ID: 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon , Andrew Rybchenko Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FBDD2BB0 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:30:43 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <2553236.UbBGAtvXhx@xps13> 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 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.