From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <Allain.Legacy@windriver.com> Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335635A44 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 12:54:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hcb.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.41]) by mail.windriver.com (8.15.2/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id v1PBsIV2009969 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 03:54:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com ([fe80::fcbe:9b7:1141:89a1]) by ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com ([147.11.189.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 03:54:18 -0800 From: "Legacy, Allain" <Allain.Legacy@windriver.com> To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> Thread-Topic: checkpatch.pl inconsistent results Thread-Index: AdKPXGKiFpJHBZnhSpKdRa13lklfAA== Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 11:54:17 +0000 Message-ID: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D85238A75701B@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [128.224.140.166] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dpdk-dev] checkpatch.pl inconsistent results X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 11:54:20 -0000 Hi, I sent a patchset to the to the mailing list last night for which I receive= d several coding style warnings. Having discovered that I was using an ol= der version of checkpatch.pl I downloaded the latest and set out to fix the= warnings. The tool is flagging the usage of PRIx64 and PRIu64 in debug lo= gs as camelcase warnings. I am unsure how to get around this. Looking at = other recent patches in patchwork I see that other patches use these macros= without being flagged as errors. =20 I thought perhaps that my version of checkpath.pl was newer because I just = downloaded it so I ran it on one of the other patchwork patches to validate= my results. The results that I get are a bit confusing. Running checkpa= tches.sh on this patch (http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/19766/) reports= no errors, warnings, or checks while this one (http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwo= rk/patch/20742/) flags two different kinds of errors related to the usage o= f PRIx64. It complains about the camelcase aspect of it, and it also compl= ains about the lack of space between the PRIx64 and the concatenated string= s at either side. =20 Can anyone shed some light on why this is happening? Regards, Allain Allain Legacy, Software Developer direct 613.270.2279=A0=A0fax 613.492.7870 skype allain.legacy =A0