From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <arnon@qwilt.com>
Received: from mail-lf1-f46.google.com (mail-lf1-f46.google.com
 [209.85.167.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CA8288C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 22:57:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-lf1-f46.google.com with SMTP id j143-v6so2118326lfj.12
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=qwilt-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=/fnrPrT+5rqGQRcCjAXh78VnXF7dYBaW/DcCRXBNj44=;
 b=QDUexWMrYi/NYoOxhsFTIEhIrCYouQ/xVmpk3siqS5T0qc8ub1nvrPCreo8pLC7jk3
 VEO+OQ+I96hwlIaR1KUtY87WBc7HwtFDu5fgvl9TPrJdDRFJxSax8ebjaWqPcMmm1Vyf
 +TZTaK8Xx3Ui7dOmGzG9qQeNRvMQhne9/M88RzmvKMsBHVvfLyoWfkGKimw/WPsgSnTQ
 IDgUXXdFCBe+ZeS/eo0qRcgHnbZu8f2JxLgdJn+zuWpq9ZuuaD12Jfc/HOw5dSogF9PW
 XTNhDqh/L94SI+w4g+JhqEvruF02wzsZ/wFzAdL2I7UiGVsORlt6ffqmis5ahMkuLeFY
 jJiA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=/fnrPrT+5rqGQRcCjAXh78VnXF7dYBaW/DcCRXBNj44=;
 b=QZf3vwVaHt5RxIRzfP82ZvAY9DmMhG/Z7QKZwx33pg4El+9hn1wgykxytduW5EHXBd
 gb8cvLD3DFRy6cLr4BWwb8MkeMoKXKJ5c0zpoeBipYaOFX8EkfoeoS7cZ/VN6U4LcNzb
 P4fA1Ua0iwuUV1qPcKNyQ517516snJXQOJQesUvgS+Frpm0F2K/LmkfnikgPOc6Xqrmd
 SWHZn/e/fZ9NbzMqWLkJPAF6GqjDnjWqTJBCvVc+S0vD/nvojb/Z9HAPbRrpXLGhONXl
 fjYAjmjwtGOENwD5WXxs/fQYnojTam680AtR0/rak8NzWDISJdgwsdsv+oYwG645SuhP
 aBUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlG3TIShRNFvEZBNSvYJDds1jmHaGOlPupKgxgtTUAyN8vu6mywY
 lQWdc4OYMjIEWxZtWPhgpKs78S98LESoFtykit0wnw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeLAjRCp49zTIYFVX2LGE4Ddkzr0/TRCabOwUpo4ve7HfTh+OJfVg2e76Yk/IxC5cIw74iZYwTIL5E5ZDocP/A=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:1460:: with SMTP id
 k93-v6mr2228509lfi.15.1532638659710; 
 Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:ab3:4dfd:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:57:39
 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5378502.1ef9rKBE6e@xps>
References: <1531741077-5513-1-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com>
 <1531745044-19185-1-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com> <5378502.1ef9rKBE6e@xps>
From: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 23:57:39 +0300
Message-ID: <CAKy9EB1AO+vDXmOqM+5fb-JXptyC4fDEBrXRuA3FqFOw75S-Rw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v12] 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: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 20:57:40 -0000

> > +check_forbidden_additions() { # <file>
>
> This function looks to work with stdin, not a file.
> Better to remove the comment about a <file>.
>

It can actually work with both  but you are right. The comment is not
beneficial there
Will fix with the rest of the list below
...

>
> > +     if [ $? -ne 0 ] ; then
> > +             ret=1
> > +     fi
> > +     printf '%s\n' "$report"
>
> You are printing the report, no matter of the result? Why?
> Is it because a warning does not return as an error?
>
There is maybe an improvement required here.
>

Yes this is indeed the reason.
Sticking to a simple success/fail in the return value with the price of
printing an empty string in the case of no-warning seemed better than
handling multiple (>2) return codes .
Do you have a preferred way here?