From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD442A5E for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 10:12:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id v186so42062200wmd.0 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 01:12:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L3P1gtAhc9uiT3UuJ94mBlUnNjg44nB23+m/Uo91eIY=; b=RBnehwiJSZKmzDl6yhpW+GPUXlr6eZmSn0/loprjH3qmD6KQcxD+J4uq6auAT/bxkP cWJTtcw88w/wnD3cbQJxGv9LgZg4wxsV3C+8ripDIJyEXPKPmXGJwtEsDJGexJav9TlJ jIrWdZWkSbWtwQfFkE29gN196sry3gu+e8g5WsYz3AUdfR24uwkZ/5maURiuB5JEWgDM Q0C5OKv4AmlJalL6zy13FzG4wOSKWuLNlE7YHlaw8tToyREPfSf3LJODmpR5WPjT2Vlo bPFcfiTyTFeslpqhQ8Ji9NWGUg9iZsLNo6on9agD/8S5CcAfw3pCfIWufgUWVc+9hQpw N84Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L3P1gtAhc9uiT3UuJ94mBlUnNjg44nB23+m/Uo91eIY=; b=EDn20XYHc1QS/8BQ02Lki8MwTnw1Pz55wAVh73N75kPM40y590mImR2eq/6/WXzdVm 4cJAWBDSk2qqBNvj0cykuQrlZD/FeGxyYOXiQgkB4bRkRZzT2YsrkkZQU0GRgGRUP7X5 XFjxpR/Us+Ah7rB1jH8kZAjNw8ASURoZm2jGKH267LPyZgzXINzjeLB2YTbsz1EDtJYM bbCAu4og3X01PsiZ/jPoFltiPd9RJnA3cs7RLjxyy4HoqD2FL/2LA/Ixm/9QU4vioUnK 2ZlFOUBjOh14A8+0W+NXE3OCGBOXWKDyFaw27VpXxrhVCeZU0ZEAYFSKeCllQx1Ea83V efgg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nOwqZ4Mcfn3dBEBhWZrQiFznxvvjyBdY1Bwyf/qSeWSlVtsB/MXSv8WyGB1B2kScwK X-Received: by 10.28.15.202 with SMTP id 193mr8628425wmp.99.1488100329473; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 01:12:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (48.114.118.80.rev.sfr.net. [80.118.114.48]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z134sm9465652wmc.20.2017.02.26.01.12.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Feb 2017 01:12:08 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Legacy, Allain" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 10:12:06 +0100 Message-ID: <1625293.rscMPIi6S2@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D85238A75701B@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> References: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D85238A75701B@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] checkpatch.pl inconsistent results X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 09:12:09 -0000 2017-02-25 11:54, Legacy, Allain: > Hi, > I sent a patchset to the to the mailing list last night for which I received several coding style warnings. Having discovered that I was using an older version of checkpatch.pl I downloaded the latest and set out to fix the warnings. The tool is flagging the usage of PRIx64 and PRIu64 in debug logs as camelcase warnings. I am unsure how to get around this. Looking at other recent patches in patchwork I see that other patches use these macros without being flagged as errors. It is a false positive. PRIx64 and PRIu64 are obviously allowed. The only thing you need to take care is having spaces around. > I thought perhaps that my version of checkpath.pl was newer because I just downloaded it so I ran it on one of the other patchwork patches to validate my results. The results that I get are a bit confusing. Running checkpatches.sh on this patch (http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/19766/) reports no errors, warnings, or checks while this one (http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/20742/) flags two different kinds of errors related to the usage of PRIx64. It complains about the camelcase aspect of it, and it also complains about the lack of space between the PRIx64 and the concatenated strings at either side. > > Can anyone shed some light on why this is happening? Maybe the difference is because the first one happens in a standard printf function and checkpatch would ignore the specifiers.