[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] testpmd: add forwarding mode to simulate a noisy neighbour

[Iremonger, Bernard]

Hi Maxime, Thomas,

<snip>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] testpmd: add forwarding mode to simulate a noisy
> neighbour
> 
> Hi Bernard,
> 
> On 06/26/2018 01:09 PM, Iremonger, Bernard wrote:
> > checkpatch.pl  is showing the following warnings:
> >
> > WARNING: Missing or malformed SPDX-License-Identifier tag in line 1
> > #122: FILE: app/test-pmd/noisy_vnf.c:1:
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> 
> I'm not sure to get what is wrong here, any thoughts?
> 

I have looked at code and compared it with other license headers and it looks ok to me.

Hi Thomas,

Could you take a look please to see if you can spot something.

> <snip/>
> 
> > WARNING: line over 80 characters
> > #394: FILE: app/test-pmd/parameters.c:1154:
> > +                       if (!strcmp(lgopts[opt_idx].name,
> > + "noisy-buffersize-before-sending")) {
> >
> > WARNING: line over 80 characters
> > #402: FILE: app/test-pmd/parameters.c:1162:
> > +                       if (!strcmp(lgopts[opt_idx].name,
> > + "noisy-flush-timeout")) {
> >
> > WARNING: line over 80 characters
> > #410: FILE: app/test-pmd/parameters.c:1170:
> > +                       if (!strcmp(lgopts[opt_idx].name,
> > + "noisy-memory-footprint")) {
> >
> > WARNING: line over 80 characters
> > #413: FILE: app/test-pmd/parameters.c:1173:
> > +                                       noisy_vnf_memory_footprint =
> > + (uint16_t) n;
> >
> > WARNING: line over 80 characters
> > #418: FILE: app/test-pmd/parameters.c:1178:
> > +                       if (!strcmp(lgopts[opt_idx].name,
> > + "noisy-nb-rnd-write")) {
> >
> > WARNING: line over 80 characters
> > #426: FILE: app/test-pmd/parameters.c:1186:
> > +                       if (!strcmp(lgopts[opt_idx].name,
> > + "noisy-nb-rnd-read")) {
> >
> > WARNING: line over 80 characters
> > #434: FILE: app/test-pmd/parameters.c:1194:
> > +                       if (!strcmp(lgopts[opt_idx].name,
> > + "noisy-nb-rnd-read-write")) {
> 
> The above ones were left intentionally for consistency with code around them.
> 
> Should I fix them? (I'm fine doing it if you prefer)

I have looked at the code and I think it would be better to fix them.
The existing code has much shorter strings.
There is some flexibility around the line length, but it depends on the tree maintainer.

Regards,

Bernard.