From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.windriver.com (mail1.windriver.com [147.11.146.13]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AA62C23 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 18:32:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hcb.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.41]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.15.2/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id v1QHW1ru005953 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 26 Feb 2017 09:32:01 -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; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 09:32:00 -0800 From: "Legacy, Allain" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] checkpatch.pl inconsistent results Thread-Index: AdKPXGKiFpJHBZnhSpKdRa13lklfAAA9xH0AAAH9rMAADbjmgAAPLgmg Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 17:31:59 +0000 Message-ID: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D85238A7573DF@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> References: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D85238A75701B@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> <1625293.rscMPIi6S2@xps13> <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D85238A75738B@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> <6716326.UsPtCJtimW@xps13> In-Reply-To: <6716326.UsPtCJtimW@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 17:32:06 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2017 11:42 AM > To: Legacy, Allain > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] checkpatch.pl inconsistent results ...=20 > Yes it has been discussed few times. > I don't see any issue at having different results, because the main benef= it of > checkpatch is to help in reviews. If a new tool or version helps to have = a > better code, it's fine but it is probably not a big issue. > I do not like the idea of saving a copy of checkpatch in DPDK (we won't > maintain it and it could be used by several DPDK repositories). > I think we can add an automatic download from kernel.org if the script is= not > found. However it won't fix the versioning. Ok, I guess what I meant was that the automatic download could fetch the to= ol from a specific commit id (not master), and we could update the commit i= d that we want to use on a periodic basis. That way at least everyone is a= t the same baseline at any given snapshot in time and results would be repr= oducible if we had to revert back to an earlier stable branch to port a fix= . =20