From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB0E11C5 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:01:14 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=intel; t=1490090474; x=1521626474; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aOifbCr4LLEeIiXcDGlWSXsus3/sgWXo5JS/VMIY9bQ=; b=p9vCtqfd/DcQxQLHIqDjrH7lVl07TkS7SR9By3NJe78EBb+auyPfdBCe GFDqppb0ISJ6cLgul17iLwsf3qfe+Q==; Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2017 03:01:13 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,198,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="79334903" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.122]) ([10.237.220.122]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2017 03:01:12 -0700 To: Ed Czeck , dev@dpdk.org References: From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <4d56e27a-ae3c-1205-2e48-26d072575eb0@intel.com> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:01:11 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] checkpatch question -- CamelCase versus PRIu32 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:01:14 -0000 On 3/20/2017 3:58 PM, Ed Czeck wrote: > Hi All, > I have a small number checkpatch.sh messages in the pattern below. The > message is a conflict between the definition of PRIu32 in the system header > files and the DPDK checkpatch setup. > > CHECK:CAMELCASE: Avoid CamelCase: > #866: FILE: drivers/net/ark/ark_debug.h:41: > +#define ARK_SU32 "\n\t%-20s %'20" PRIu32 > > Is there a preferred way to resolve this? Not I am aware of, overall camel case syntax is not preferred in DPDK, and you can ignore warnings for PRIu32, PRIu64 .. > > Thanks > Ed >