From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1C4376C for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:38:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hmsreliant.think-freely.org ([2001:470:8:a08:7aac:c0ff:fec2:933b] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Yi1yk-0007IP-2h; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 10:38:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 10:38:17 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Bruce Richardson Message-ID: <20150414143817.GA11180@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <3571725.20GtF5MAnU@xps13> <0C5AFCA4B3408848ADF2A3073F7D8CC86D58F9C2@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <2232884.6IKBPajdgE@xps13> <0C5AFCA4B3408848ADF2A3073F7D8CC86D590392@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <20150414142153.GA3296@bricha3-MOBL3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150414142153.GA3296@bricha3-MOBL3> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" 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 14:38:26 -0000 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. Neil > /Bruce >