Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] examples/l2fwd: fix checkpatch reported issues

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

08/10/2018 14:35, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 10/8/2018 12:29 PM, Joseph, Anoob wrote:
> > On 08-10-2018 16:30, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 10/8/2018 11:41 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote:
> >>> This patchset fixes multiple issues reported by checkpatch in l2fwd
> >>> code base. These issues would be flagged for any new copy of the file
> >>> and hence, fixing at the source.
> >>>
> >>> Anoob Joseph (8):
> >>>    examples/l2fwd: remove quoted white space before newline
> >>>    examples/l2fwd: need space between two args
> >>>    examples/l2fwd: else should follow close brace
> >>>    examples/l2fwd: replace bare usage of 'unsigned'
> >>>    examples/l2fwd: follow convention for block comments
> >>>    examples/l2fwd: limit line to 80 char
> >>>    examples/l2fwd: space required between elements
> >>>    examples/l2fwd: remove null initialisation
> >> Hi Anoob,
> >>
> >> I am not sure if it is good idea to get syntax only fixes, I would prefer to get
> >> syntax fixes when some other code touches that area.
> > I'm preparing a new copy of l2fwd with support for eventmode(as 
> > suggested in, 
> > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-August/109717.html). All these 
> > issues were flagged when I did the copy. What would be the better 
> > approach in that case? Fix it in just the new application or fix the 
> > source? Fixing in just the new app would mean, the two versions will 
> > have a diff at the time of copy.
> 
> I see, make sense to not create syntax diff copied and original versions, I
> missed the new copy part. So OK for this patch.

It was said that there will be not so much common code.
So why bothering to reformat the original example?

Anyway, if such cleanup is worth before duplicating,
please insert it in the same patchset as the new example.