From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net>
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53ED62BD8
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 01:15:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D2B21B20;
 Sun, 15 Jul 2018 19:15:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 15 Jul 2018 19:15:46 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
 :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender
 :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=Ynw4X8mDVdJYqcmy5Xwjp5he60
 SHk76AWxDtdzsUT4s=; b=hZLefI/kB3MdaFh5L2e20MOfXs/R7ars8ATvmVBprO
 nQh9X8ykS7mcWWr48Gbx0g1mW7+I+nKXbFAAp6LR1mXZ+dq1v32mQZwgpVRz26eW
 7f83+mUhnuOV1IPPAeHFIeneKaarh/ulEVEQLyx9kKV0zN84YZp3nWy5MxlhCfan
 E=
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-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=Ynw4X8
 mDVdJYqcmy5Xwjp5he60SHk76AWxDtdzsUT4s=; b=KxNr9o1/Wd40/L2b/yQ2QP
 HoysdsBFMPoezi3XnbUspGhjWFyXMa3ycTkMDTvQGrEUgiUVx9bpoCTq+grbJGVO
 0pNd1p88/kVr6rMVND+ldM9sD3DECNwayktqJqEEU3TKRgboBAT0LAaMvfYfoR8d
 qfxQfB1YCrd3F0cTxSxjjieE/qZHDJpx69iTmM3OSMaVFryzpzKII7KdnCUErv/y
 Hmu2afHTtIYSHlIi45inOOk44kB/5YCGK0Q7de/ATcVVuHxgzE+Gbt3ib8Af1tk7
 0vKhez3lxWhVGvIyfMs2bXq/8Q2B+XlIuc+NfvNwW0p+tzV7M3S1t0F+DCV8W5BQ
 ==
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:odVLW3HmDhWtBQ5vEVwu-G2-SAOBz3h9rOrTr8K4mFeN_hEASqnX8g>
 <xmx:odVLWxsNTlwsM98XDFBwU70IlyJ66biGBvOcVuzKGMj4g9eH6hsayw>
 <xmx:odVLWyrnV6660bruuBYStit2o9_qcKMIS1hxJ51XGwrMHXLo0HBMSA>
 <xmx:odVLWwXrT0XfINLLYn2nHpedPAj5PZjA3jA2xWl7p77cMyKE1EcDnw>
 <xmx:odVLWy0VQrEqTYyAJgeQBcX2w3n4dHEiicglrjV5DS2ixlFJxVHwEQ>
 <xmx:odVLW29D67cZ_2MO1rUY8PDgK85HsP2EfNspLTuGquo8ie5Gb8LWIg>
X-ME-Sender: <xms:odVLW5ORYRwjwQLOp9qpcDqeA7O2Z0q520ht1AkGbwGCdN6z64wPZA>
Received: from xps.localnet (unknown [31.154.190.114])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 41EB810269;
 Sun, 15 Jul 2018 19:15:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>, "Lu,
 Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, "Doherty, Declan" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
 jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
 "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 01:15:35 +0200
Message-ID: <5570581.lEyTUYlapn@xps>
In-Reply-To: <CAKy9EB2oeVFHW+mDY++ggf0z=hsmH+0Qwjg8FJevVm_cuNR=5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1524723664-30510-11-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com>
 <5254321.ZC84c43z8L@xps>
 <CAKy9EB2oeVFHW+mDY++ggf0z=hsmH+0Qwjg8FJevVm_cuNR=5Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10] devtools: alert on new instances of
	rte_panic and rte_exit
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 23:15:46 -0000

27/05/2018 22:34, Arnon Warshavsky:
> This is consuming stdin.
> > I guess the checkpatch.pl will have nothing to check in the next step.
> > We should merge Neil's patch first, because he is adding a tmpfile
> > to solve the issue of stdin read only once.
> >
> 
> Yup. Missed the fact stdin is consumed. temp file is a good idea
> 
> >
> > > +             [ $? -eq 0 ] || return 0
> >
> > This test looks reversed: if the result is not 0, we should not return 0.
> > And by the way, I think it is better to continue with other checks.
> > Neil's patch is setting ret=1, continue and return at the end.
> >
> > >               report=$($DPDK_CHECKPATCH_PATH $options - 2>/dev/null)
> >
> 
> As it was agreed that this check should only warn and not fail the tests,
> The actual situation is that the function check_forbidden_additions()
> always returns zero.
> Once Neils patch is in, I can align to the return value propagation,
> but the current code never fails  (that may change of course for future
> different tokens)

Neil's patch is merged. Please would you like to resume your work?