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 483CDA046B for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:07:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2CC71BEFC; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:07:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4961BEA6 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:07:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA9D221E5; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:07:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=fqXeQrg4XKnJQujHP7v0QNm+WkKLQDI/VsoCspYt92s=; b=EFhf15syFu8C gGjiXT+no4Z/IHtr3uKMFUv5yXLsCGGeLPxBRHbYg6QHT7XCGlQ7ZqucVUJczXn8 CGr47qQxHg3Qi9C0YTGcZPoNgQui985QJa2PZW/hS7XUQ4Qfraq117Qt9PfwLHNj QenVCqXhoxFDQaklQ2sJNtjijqp01gk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=fqXeQrg4XKnJQujHP7v0QNm+WkKLQDI/VsoCspYt9 2s=; b=uzMxV681WiY9oJC5FO7DDZtNHCD9E8BslNKvIM71Z6I7l0XnPR7sjps/P MwT7210CswBfHFoy6QLjp2ABQJN2/LApTac9AbfSsXNKJN9rrfvog7DPpZ3AS0kJ 8gHRrjbE1g5f0TSinlGwzS5VucNiExugRMHM7FyrdbXq6OART/612ISl58D7hcUc FetvLDkXrKT99IwLSDpMaB4U+kLF19hdN6c1m2NqkoDHFkmw9+DUpXjxyM0Rsm3G sgT8iJyJbiyy09SAhzI83Yhu9tGCrOCXTJf2okrYshjc8C+NMCp2tOPYUzDd9em+ oNAA0aXLp+IYiE0xGAlpyW6k8CU4Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddruddvgdeifecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E123A80059; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:07:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Andrew Rybchenko , dev@dpdk.org Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:07:05 +0200 Message-ID: <2612480.Bq0RenjZd2@xps> In-Reply-To: <3c740cd3-e8e8-bef9-161f-0a46202c167e@intel.com> References: <1560152324-20538-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> <71e7890d-585a-6bf7-8112-9fe4d400143e@solarflare.com> <3c740cd3-e8e8-bef9-161f-0a46202c167e@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 00/29] net/sfc/base: update base driver 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" 24/06/2019 13:17, Ferruh Yigit: > On 6/24/2019 8:53 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > On 6/24/19 1:37 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 18/06/2019 09:52, Ferruh Yigit: > >>> On 6/10/2019 8:38 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > >>>> checkpatches.sh generates warnings/errors because of a bit different > >>>> coding style in base driver. > >> [...] > >>> Series applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks. > >>> > >>> Fixed following checkpatch warnings while merging: > >> There are a lot more checkpatch warnings in this code. > >> Is it possible to fix the style of the code in the sfc/base directory? > >> Or we prefer to continue with so many checkpatch warnings? > > > > In short: I'm trying to minimize a number of warnings, but it is not always > > possible. I'll pay even more attention to it in the future. > > There are a few known syntax differences between DPDK and sfc/base/*, most of > the warnings are from those, > > at least I am OK with them as long as the syntax is consistent in sfc/base/* > which seems the case, I believe this is better than having a mixture of two > different syntax in the code. OK thanks for the answers