From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id E304BA0096 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 17:27:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A086B1B9A7; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 17:27:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E261B9A5 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 17:27:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cpe-2606-a000-111b-405a-0-0-0-162e.dyn6.twc.com ([2606:a000:111b:405a::162e] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1hYuIE-00047M-6y; Thu, 06 Jun 2019 11:27:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 11:26:34 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran Cc: Bruce Richardson , "dev@dpdk.org" , Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20190606152634.GG29521@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> References: <20190605164541.GH1550@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <20190605181108.GC554@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20190606113422.GA29521@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20190606133503.GB29521@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> <20190606150354.GF29521@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [RFC PATCH 0/2] introduce __rte_internal tag 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 03:14:42PM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote: > > > I don't have any strong opinion on name prefix vs marking as __rte_internal. > Or combination of both. I am fine any approach. > > I have only strong option on not to induce objdump dependency for checkpatch. > For the reason mentioned in http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-June/134160.html. > Sorry, in my haste I didn't fully adress this in your previous email I'm really uncertain what you mean by introducing a checkpatch dependency on objdump here. Theres nothing preventing you from running checkpatch before you build the library. The only thing checkpatch does in dpdk is scan the patches for sytle violations, and for changes in the map file for movement to and from the EXPERIMENTAL section (i.e. no use of objdump). My patch modifies check-experimental-syms.sh (adding an objdump scan for INTERNAL symbols, and renaming the script to check-special-syms.sh to be more meaningful). That script however, is not run by checkpatch, its run during compilation of the library to ensure that any symbol in a map file is also tagged with __rte_internal in the corresponding object). Theres no path from checkpatches to check-experimental-syms.sh What I meant in my last comment was that any dependency on objdump in check-[experimental|special]-syms.sh already existed prior to this patch. So I'm unsure why you think checkpatches has a dependency. Neil