[dpdk-dev] Solarflare PMD submission question

Ferruh Yigit ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Mon Nov 21 11:30:39 CET 2016

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 at 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.

More information about the dev mailing list