From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC3DA0C4E; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:55:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C776411FE; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:55:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5090C4118E for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:55:27 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10144"; a="315258143" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,170,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="315258143" Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Oct 2021 07:55:26 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,170,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="444830261" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.15.169]) by orsmga006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Oct 2021 07:55:24 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:55:21 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: fengchengwen Cc: Thomas Monjalon , conor.walsh@intel.com, kevin.laatz@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, jerinj@marvell.com Message-ID: References: <20210924102942.2878051-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <20211013151736.762378-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <3092116.XSkZisFCfb@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 00/13] add test suite for DMA drivers X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 08:06:13PM +0800, fengchengwen wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > I observed a large number of checkpatch errors [1] when synchronizing to our inner CI, > almost all of them are over 80 lines, and many are not LONG LOG. > > The DPDK coding style recommends to be not more than 80 characters unless rarest > situations (which LONG LOG belongs to this one I think). > > I don't know which to follow: just ignore or should fix it ? I'd rather not change these as the code is more readable unwrapped. Although the docs do indeed recommend 80 characters, in practice we allow up to 100 characters and the CI's run using that limit for checkpatch. I've actually submitted a patchset to try and update our doc and usertools to match the in-practice policy. /Bruce [1] http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20211020142601.157649-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com/