From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f46.google.com (mail-oi0-f46.google.com [209.85.218.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0598E7C for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:54:14 +0100 (CET) Received: by oiao187 with SMTP id o187so33457050oia.3 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:54:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind_com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=eQnB+QE+Qz0YHKQ6jXIeNT9O6Zk3OkvPucGP7YCyX1I=; b=e4SqDVdOy6vbWKkN8qUREwLUPG9TjjzJ9OJYpjrq7zcz+oiJmFEk5kzRjhZxOoky6U jwrLHkoFFqVmeBozjdUvxeSM5NGjECQhOPXwga490pPnddRZwZZ19IBXTRPq5qygeXXl KSDT+8vnqBrAS/Dn9h1iOfsWrhDVClzonumtKFLblXqjLJPB9xjCBldG9DR+rLBT19fq biJtm5qSP6BRbV2pIfWrTPQ0Afr70lxUIWMUW8+L6+kHm2i0/1SLqtjurTivEk582c21 Xfu9jPt1sExgl/MpUT9RI7F7VU2LByRRV7tqXWER2XerpgVzvzK4WenW3R9pI1IIsl86 bWwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eQnB+QE+Qz0YHKQ6jXIeNT9O6Zk3OkvPucGP7YCyX1I=; b=gwWmpvnaqQTwaC6iG7WypBX9SwP/wXXbgX9+zoLiLu7Xl4uxDhR/pI7fwD4IUemLHJ Zpg5rIsljXuYLlK8aPSUc8PET5YikmXR72jvQmhxj7EHkKa/H4Za06HbfrftU8IX8CzV tQoncMtBStUs+2AkJVoZR6e0XpBQhDZgWAHr018IlYQVwTsF6xM4VTHV5v+9tSdwv1Am 12OotaZ5BRDp2WJuEgt3bCfsj/wp7EKUUxwpwVi2DLwL8d9J3DurV0gcZlH1+iUEX76c 4dCx5zastTbnIxaxjLSICu+89QOoEGfnGcIP/ycoEmTwQD+kk6brEDNdF/tWm1Q1skLd 5V0A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk1HPJJRXtesWzpB8RCHkfYZObYgmdgF5LK9BIAzb7GDA7jnSAqE/Vr16dIfj9ptwWO2N4R MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.71.9 with SMTP id u9mr1108041oia.118.1446126853870; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.131.166 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:54:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20151029134815.GA15580@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1445615606-3885-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <3011581.XzQahXhfO1@xps13> <20151029132430.GA13416@bricha3-MOBL3> <1916628.LyRMkppVPT@xps13> <20151029134815.GA15580@bricha3-MOBL3> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:54:13 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Marchand To: Bruce Richardson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] scripts: add checkpatch wrapper X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:54:14 -0000 On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Bruce Richardson < bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:34:32PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > I agree with both of you. > > I could suggest something but I'm afraid it will be difficult to have a > > consensus between a "quiet tool" and a "double check verbose tool". > > As it is a really critical piece of code, I think we should have a > meeting > > with a technical steering comittee ;) > > ... or we can add an option: -q or -v ? Debate is open :D > > > Yes, the whole future of the project could hinge on this decision :-) > Eheh :-) > Ok, my suggestion is both! > 1) Have the default (in case of no errors), be a single line print out at > the end > stating number of files scanned > 2) If "-q" flag specified, skip this > 3) If "-v" flag specified, do current behaviour with a line per file. > Ok for me. -- David Marchand