From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF6A8DA3 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:35:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by wicll6 with SMTP id ll6so42679951wic.1 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:35:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind_com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=0XzMAZbg28hm927g6Zyytk6E84qIZIRwnjVAvPl6edI=; b=oylF5Wiq+zb4cPydzv/6WdJT/u2rfC7fvqA7GOXQAFRqDBX6xqhFJ9v3B2uiuufWd/ OtmehPrzxQxyVsNX3m4SrC5c5RR5JJZdQxYKKbGcg7K+yNHrfBobXCXnPDgiwQcKlWm3 UHk60pFMbo1jIyLFbNmE2PCYBabJrdoCdht/sWKnHtRMDu58mP4aN3BcwL5YJ7FdC3SW 5RCvazrE2X5S/wMeSW+Ee3BRA41Tq7ENXKdTpCCXManRixusSdXMIYGTq5KrbVBWMzva /ALf5r+CpXsZ96uptu1DYnXv/pxCn9dwKpmAnkVdFXse7RqkeiP0PNYDcpcXEJJdI3TQ iNRQ== 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=0XzMAZbg28hm927g6Zyytk6E84qIZIRwnjVAvPl6edI=; b=ZyjWc6zTbplG0F/nSW/9OqGNTkBVAvYjwS+zFSawUVYpsGB/jp8ITjY2mwhFDDsmt7 SgLp3cAlTP8Rn7u1eRdiJ2Zj+nwgeWnDoyedmcvRllDTzeD8zlRgFOKSxTgMYtZTNcAr NsyRwGjYXXXr+OFVcw9AtIcKTvEp9khCJVfSG4zaSS7d9ePtjLoVN90HvWH9hddHAcJ9 8fR6RX0CmrcFMNB+4ls/ubCB6U6Kzg2z+fAPjAp8zMMS2dsBKEnhcO2zLLpcAoljZCXq Jma0VWveyS75GME7cnUBaVIqIr3W2oOw9n7Mm0DM8DtJ9ofKywQEqyDMFJSP0GhwVOe1 f/zw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmAG8nlkex4PPk/NgrFUp3W6hl3l9y1vYPJm5MVFbJlyM4KkawpZ+MnmmLg9aNcpaOqYbRV X-Received: by 10.194.189.68 with SMTP id gg4mr2201380wjc.146.1446125744509; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id hk5sm1882938wjb.6.2015.10.29.06.35.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Oct 2015 06:35:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson , David Marchand Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:34:32 +0100 Message-ID: <1916628.LyRMkppVPT@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20151029132430.GA13416@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1445615606-3885-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <3011581.XzQahXhfO1@xps13> <20151029132430.GA13416@bricha3-MOBL3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 13:35:45 -0000 2015-10-29 13:24, Bruce Richardson: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-10-29 13:33, David Marchand: > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +for p in "$@" ; do > > > > + printf -- "\n### $p\n\n" > > > > + report=$($DPDK_CHECKPATCH_PATH $options "$p" 2>/dev/null) > > > > + [ $? -ne 0 ] || continue > > > > + printf '%s\n' "$report" | head -n -6 > > > > + status=$(($status + 1)) > > > > +done > > > > +exit $status > > > > > > > > > > I prefer when checking scripts only complain when something is wrong :-) > > > So I would only display the file name if checkpatch complains. > > > > Yes I'll move the first printf after the "continue". > > Ok, but perhaps instead we can get a print at the end of how many files were > checked. I'm concerned about the case where we think we have checked something and > it's ok, when in fact we have actually had an error in our command and e.g. not checked > any files at all. The printing of the filename helps give a guarantee that the > script is doing the right thing, so if it goes away, I'd hope for some other method > to ensure that. 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