From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A442B2E8F for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:48:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wizk4 with SMTP id k4so116828066wiz.1 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:48:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=SYjKwsGJ4aU+D9cWpvxmxeS5rOiHlHozOBMwXPIIpyM=; b=J0JK9DOw1pWNc5JEcJKXDYuuZDkIP0VxWQSOlRESvt3K4KWzEXKmw6stWSAlzVpg70 we7fHGoa6YBiIK0sfRJJyjMpq50uOac8SKmOYrxNNtESQbcRfrjcMb1+YEInKs4EUURH /2hTdxD9aNpKP6H0PAeg9VbhswUc9y1M8WNfz2B+I5da1l3y9sAlg7j5Ax293jN3KG1L +hx1wZJZ6PiQWadQor5Euu3TNwbCHOhdZK0OEa1weUiQQNvixnCQBnBNP7rILeRcv5Hc DZev7Fz1cMggi2XgLU5d+uWDkYc4l2mAPAOuCKL66NJEWWVrx1lf+MHSRXMlDZdUt2qf cUsw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkMvCg5y+FIYJf1FXMo5uneNS4GfWx1BWi201KSQPeYA09aJUDRPu3WbAYVuorflGbO7lSY X-Received: by 10.180.74.198 with SMTP id w6mr33291828wiv.69.1429022909515; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o5sm21480118wia.0.2015.04.14.07.48.28 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:48:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: dev@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:47:47 +0200 Message-ID: <12427242.1PjL83oBG2@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.4 (Linux/3.18.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.4; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20150414143817.GA11180@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <3571725.20GtF5MAnU@xps13> <20150414142153.GA3296@bricha3-MOBL3> <20150414143817.GA11180@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming 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: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:48:30 -0000 2015-04-14 10:38, Neil Horman: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 03:21:53PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 07:54:40PM +0000, Butler, Siobhan A wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 5:16 PM > > > > To: Wiles, Keith; Butler, Siobhan A > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming > > > > > > > > 2015-04-08 15:53, Wiles, Keith: > > > > > One of the biggest problems with any style is helping the developer > > > > > maintain the style. Using some tool does help and I have used astyle > > > > > before, not bad code formatter. Here is a few that seem to be reasonable. > > > > > > > > > > http://astyle.sourceforge.net/ > > > > > > > > > > http://uncrustify.sourceforge.net/ > > > > > > > > > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/gcgreatcode/ > > > > > > > > I'm not sure it's a good idea to convert the codebase automatically. > > > > The coding style must be a reference for new patches and they must be > > > > automatically checked with a dedicated checkpatch tool. > > > > By forbidding patches which don't comply, the codebase will be naturally > > > > converted over time. > > > > > > > > I didn't review this proposal yet. > > > > My first comment is that it's too long to read :) When a consensus is done, it > > > > must be added with a patch with custom checkpatch addition. > > > Thanks Thomas, agreed it is a bit of a novel :)- I will refactor with the comments supplied so far and post a fresh version tomorrow. > > > Siobhan > > > > > > > Just wondering here, are we looking to codify what the current predominant coding > > style in DPDK *is* or what it *should be*? > > > > There has been some good discussion on a variety of areas, but if we focus on > > initially codifying what's there now, some issues become easier to resolve - > > e.g. discussion of commenting style, since only C89 comments are allowed right now. > > > > This is an excellent question. I think the answer is we should make the style > what we want it to be. That said, when there is a significant discrepancy behind > what is wanted and what is, we need to stop and ask ourselves why that exists, > and what our reasoning is for wanting the change. Yes the question must be asked. I think the main goal is to have a consistent style. As there is already a lot of code with implicit guidelines, it's simpler to make them official.