From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] checkpatch: don't complain about SPDX tag format
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:56:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180418085605.GA111744@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4245883.kl7A9e8lPX@xps>
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.
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?
/Bruce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-18 8:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-17 21:49 Stephen Hemminger
2018-04-17 22:06 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-17 22:11 ` Scott Branden
2018-04-17 22:19 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-18 8:56 ` Bruce Richardson [this message]
2018-04-18 10:49 ` Kuusisaari, Juhamatti
2018-04-18 13:28 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-04-18 13:50 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-04-18 15:25 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-04-19 12:42 ` Hemant Agrawal
2018-06-08 19:41 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180418085605.GA111744@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=scott.branden@broadcom.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).