Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] checkpatch: don't complain about SPDX tag format

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

18/04/2018 10:56, Bruce Richardson:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:19:07AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 18/04/2018 00:11, Scott Branden:
> > > On 18-04-17 03:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 17/04/2018 23:49, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > >> IMHO would have been better to use the kernel SPDX style and
> > > >> keep the check but that appears to be a minority opinion.
> > > > 
> > > > I think it is better to work on checkpatch itself.
> > > > When defining our SPDX style, Linux one was not definitive.
> > > > Do you think we can ask the Linux community to support our SPDX style?
> > > >
> > > I think it better to simply follow the Linux community defacto style 
> > > rather than go your own way.
> > 
> > But our way is better! :)
> > And it has been decided in the Technical Board.
> > 
> 
> As a general issue, I think we could do with having our own checkpatch-like
> script for performing addition DPDK-specific code-checks *after* Linux
> checkpatch ones. That is, reuse Linux check patch checks as much as
> possible, but have other checks too.

+1 to call more scripts in checkpatches.sh.
We need to find the right language to do code checks.
Coccinelle looks to be a good candidate for some checks.

> For example, check for use of strcpy or strncpy (or snprintf with "%s") and
> suggest replacing with strlcpy. If we did have our own extension script, we
> could put our own SPDX format check there too.
> 
> Thoughts, or any volunteers to look into this?

I am not volunteer to start the work but I would be glad to contribute later.

Any motivated volunteer?