Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2015-04-14 15:52, Bruce Richardson:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:16:12PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > When a consensus is done, it must be added with a patch with custom
> > checkpatch addition.
> > 
> My personal feeling is that we should try and keep checkpatch modifications to a
> minimum. Right now, we can use checkpatch as-is from kernel.org, right?

Yes that's something we have to discuss.
It should be preferred to avoid "forking" checkpatch.

At the moment, I'm using this configuration:

	options="$options --max-line-length=100"
	options="$options --show-types"
	options="$options --ignore=LINUX_VERSION_CODE,FILE_PATH_CHANGES,\
	VOLATILE,PREFER_PACKED,PREFER_ALIGNED,PREFER_PRINTF,\
	SPLIT_STRING,LINE_SPACING,NEW_TYPEDEFS,COMPLEX_MACRO"

	linux/scripts/checkpatch.pl $options

I would like to submit a script to run checkpatch with DPDK configuration
when the coding rules are clear.

However, I've already seen some options which are not enough configurable
(don't remember which one). For such corner case, I would see 3 solutions
(from the most to the least desired):
	- submit a patch to allow more configuration to kernel.org
	- give up automatic handling of corner cases
	- maintain a fork in scripts/ directory