Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] checkpatch: don't complain about SPDX tag format

["Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>]

> On Apr 18, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 
> 18/04/2018 10:56, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:19:07AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 18/04/2018 00:11, Scott Branden:
>>>> On 18-04-17 03:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>> 17/04/2018 23:49, Stephen Hemminger:
>>>>>> IMHO would have been better to use the kernel SPDX style and
>>>>>> keep the check but that appears to be a minority opinion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think it is better to work on checkpatch itself.
>>>>> When defining our SPDX style, Linux one was not definitive.
>>>>> Do you think we can ask the Linux community to support our SPDX style?
>>>>> 
>>>> I think it better to simply follow the Linux community defacto style 
>>>> rather than go your own way.
>>> 
>>> But our way is better! :)
>>> And it has been decided in the Technical Board.
>>> 
>> 
>> As a general issue, I think we could do with having our own checkpatch-like
>> script for performing addition DPDK-specific code-checks *after* Linux
>> checkpatch ones. That is, reuse Linux check patch checks as much as
>> possible, but have other checks too.

I too believe we need to support our own checkpatch to better detect and fix DPDK specific issues.

> 
> +1 to call more scripts in checkpatches.sh.
> We need to find the right language to do code checks.
> Coccinelle looks to be a good candidate for some checks.
> 
>> For example, check for use of strcpy or strncpy (or snprintf with "%s") and
>> suggest replacing with strlcpy. If we did have our own extension script, we
>> could put our own SPDX format check there too.
>> 
>> Thoughts, or any volunteers to look into this?
> 
> I am not volunteer to start the work but I would be glad to contribute later.
> 
> Any motivated volunteer?

Regards,
Keith