From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CD545AF3; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:05:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD1B4066D; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:05:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pf1-f173.google.com (mail-pf1-f173.google.com [209.85.210.173]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F15A402A9 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2024 17:05:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pf1-f173.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-71e02249621so2635097b3a.1 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2024 08:05:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1728486334; x=1729091134; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=RRegbycxQHSh/nWYKEryD/8GTxuSyuU8lR15wpVydLk=; b=hfrNd1Hm+l3iZr9lLHK7VmcmvcXXkCPVAPPR62tPV3vN/BqU7IZOHigS1RnZbrpU5F RjJC1MnprR7zRfuK9SQNDJbDAwYdmKQuAhW/SAze7sOK8TQK303/6v4Pm5jjA0A0Bz5O 7T/Z8+e2PtESiGueC9dOi60OxvPjii06vywsuEdfk35Enw/7vTCLYlCPOTBZv8Xw2+9e mRNZ8NGs7DIeS1ikXbiXXZ/sV5QOx1O1UtkgfvKhjj8TRJPHjtvurX5qp9uixHyewsxE E6OtcFwSv6rGiTPmc/HOQVeIpfqGYLw+E4q0kZBo6bci79C+STmoRgl106POe+B1FQey OSpQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1728486334; x=1729091134; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=RRegbycxQHSh/nWYKEryD/8GTxuSyuU8lR15wpVydLk=; b=Nx2c418pxnzU5MtRkRTR3hC5RxuuMkrJMOKsVXtXbY4rzSLzewDEwr+n2btt4ijlxX XcnuEETft51oo0SgfKBLtHFByrogA7Y7tb7okBiLUolDSkS3U6yJSvzLQSOfrG5WhUmb tC5aYB+4AyqudvsCTG84RIlNMnZ1q9GwN/fUVXz9HDO4bm4vRWqM2DBWWxRPbiW7ZqF5 eGh5MiCrYvKxJnKre7bsGdL4dTqE1Eysy+/89FcIvFaCqsUeuf8VN5NFS0LupKwPqFd9 VRKErQ6q8eYlm0jOj9a2lRD2dn3ueE5X0C1Pr0Z3J/y0dXy6swzfs5tIFxbo3CJsK3Em FQJw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwqHyO/MM3dF0Tm+iHGdH0OduOyH0h1MxbRDUr7tuQJ8yLTPv3Q 8WECo5p5THyRDl1q9curlhNtzTmId4Gyq7Q7BISoo4d438Z38dxFjAlqUNi3+/E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHw+LCS3yvrFtd8HDEu+SMiIs5bRZgXWw9u00Jex8mcGj3Pb70/Cfi/Mz4FUqtTPNmadWZBKw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:4006:b0:1d7:11af:69 with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-1d8a3c4b7d1mr5346474637.32.1728486334408; Wed, 09 Oct 2024 08:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-96-226.wavecable.com. [204.195.96.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-71df0d65246sm7858546b3a.169.2024.10.09.08.05.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 09 Oct 2024 08:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:05:32 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Ankur Dwivedi Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "thomas@monjalon.net" , Jerin Jacob Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] devtools: add tracepoint check in checkpatch Message-ID: <20241009080532.0f7ade2a@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: <20230307120514.2774917-1-adwivedi@marvell.com> <20231215064355.1429709-1-adwivedi@marvell.com> <20241007174049.30e25d59@hermes.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 06:03:58 +0000 Ankur Dwivedi wrote: > >> Please let me know if this patch series can be merged in DPDK or if there are > >any comments. > > > >Not sure why the patch got ignored. > >Perhaps if check-tracepoint was run first against existing code; add to check- > >patch later. > > check-tracepoint reads a patch and checks if a newly added function in a library has the trace in it or not. > For existing code trace can be added manually. Trace was added for existing functions in 23.03 release. > > > >And the skip list is empty, is that right? > Yes. > If trace is not required for a new library function, the function name can be added in skiplist. > The checkpatch will ignore trace check for that function. > > is all of existing cryptodev ethdev ... ok > >now? > > No, it's not completely ok. Few functions does not have trace added. Majority have trace added. I wonder if a coccinelle script might be better for this. Rather than adding more checks to already annoying checkpatch.