From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F03F9A8F for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:54:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2015 07:54:13 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,576,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="679918632" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.243.20.33]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 14 Apr 2015 07:54:11 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:54:10 +0025 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:54:10 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20150414145410.GD3296@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <3571725.20GtF5MAnU@xps13> <20150414142153.GA3296@bricha3-MOBL3> <20150414143817.GA11180@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <12427242.1PjL83oBG2@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12427242.1PjL83oBG2@xps13> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) 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 14:54:37 -0000 On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 04:47:47PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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. > Sounds good to me. Let's document what we have, then evolve it as necessary. :-)