Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] scripts: add check for net driver names without net prefix

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-07-06 10:25, Bruce Richardson:
> > On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 11:10:48AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 2016-07-05 15:40, Bruce Richardson:
> > > > +# check headline label for net/ prefix if needed
> > > > +bad=$(echo "$headlines" | grep -E --color=always \
> > > > +	-e "^($(ls drivers/net | grep -v Makefile | tr '\n' '|')):" \
> > > > +	| sed 's,^,\t,')
> > > > +[ -z "$bad" ] || printf "Headline missing 'net/' prefix:\n$bad\n"
> > > 
> > > This check is definitely a good idea.
> > > We need the same thing for crypto.
> > > Few nits:
> > > - -E is not needed for this regex
> > > - "/base:" cases are not handled because of the colon at the end
> > > of the regex.
> > 
> > Good point. Easy enough to fix, I suspect.
> > 
> > > - patches touching several drivers are not handled. Examples:
> > >   "mlx:" -> "net/mlx:"
> > >   "drivers/net:" -> "net:"
> > > 
> > Yes, however, those are in the minority of cases, and we can always add
> > special case extra regex's for those - hardcoded like the other regex's in the
> > file. I did the pulling directory list so we don't have to update the checks
> > every time a new driver was added.
> 
> Another issue: I suspect you will have false positives with librte_ring and
> librte_vhost.

Yep, good catch there. Need to tune up those filters if I proceed with this.

> 
> > > By the way, I am looking at an idea, that Nelio sent me, based on
> > > modified files. It can complete this check.
> > 
> > Great. I'll look forward to seeing that. If it works out well, by all means
> > drop this patch. If it's not coming any time soon though, I can do a V2 of
> > this patch, but I won't bother right now in the expectation that a better
> > solution is coming.
> 
> My concern is that the file-based solution will handle only the patches where
> every changes are in drivers/ (not config/ or anything else).
> I'm thinking how to merge both solutions.
> 
> I'm also concerned by the time passed developing these checks ;)

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."