From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail5.wrs.com (mail5.windriver.com [192.103.53.11]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBE42C23 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:20:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hcb.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.41]) by mail5.wrs.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id v1QGK6lr024623 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Sun, 26 Feb 2017 08:20:06 -0800 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; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 08:20:05 -0800 From: "Legacy, Allain" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] checkpatch.pl inconsistent results Thread-Index: AdKPXGKiFpJHBZnhSpKdRa13lklfAAA9xH0AAAH9rMA= Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 16:20:04 +0000 Message-ID: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D85238A75738B@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> References: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D85238A75701B@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> <1625293.rscMPIi6S2@xps13> In-Reply-To: <1625293.rscMPIi6S2@xps13> 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="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 16:20:10 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2017 4:12 AM > To: Legacy, Allain > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] checkpatch.pl inconsistent results > Importance: High >=20 > 2017-02-25 11:54, Legacy, Allain: ... >=20 > It is a false positive. > PRIx64 and PRIu64 are obviously allowed. > The only thing you need to take care is having spaces around. >=20 Ok, thanks Thomas. Obviously PRIx64 and PRIu64 are acceptable so I knew th= at something must have been wrong with my understanding or what I was doing= . I'll ignore these and proceed to fixing the other issues missed because= of the older version of checkpatch.pl that I was using. Is there a list = of acceptable false positives to avoid wasting time trying to figure these = out? =20 > Maybe the difference is because the first one happens in a standard > printf function and checkpatch would ignore the specifiers. Just for curiosity sake I copied the line from my change in to the other pa= tch that I mentioned and the checkpath.pl tool did not flag an error so it = seems like it may be file path dependent. Since it is a false positive I w= on't waste any time trying to chase this down any further.=20 On the subject of using the correct version of checkpath.pl, has there been= any discussions around storing a version of this tool in the dpdk tree to = avoid developers using one version while the automated tools use another, o= r even so that all developers are using the same version at any given time?= It has always been my experience that it is better to version control as= many of the dependent tools as possible to ensure repeatable and predictab= le results. If storing a version of the script in the dpdk tree is unacce= ptable then perhaps automatically downloading a copy from kernel.org at run= time would be better?