From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3132F9208 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:16:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2015 09:16:50 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,219,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="838964059" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.63]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 30 Oct 2015 09:16:41 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:16:40 +0025 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:16:40 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20151030161640.GA5284@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1445615606-3885-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <20151029134815.GA15580@bricha3-MOBL3> <2182686.Rj6sEZi19Z@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2182686.Rj6sEZi19Z@xps13> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) 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: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:16:51 -0000 On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:57:42PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-10-29 14:54, David Marchand: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:34:32PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > Yes, the whole future of the project could hinge on this decision :-) > > > > Eheh :-) > > > > > Ok, my suggestion is both! > > > 1) Have the default (in case of no errors), be a single line print out at > > > the end > > > stating number of files scanned > > > 2) If "-q" flag specified, skip this > > > 3) If "-v" flag specified, do current behaviour with a line per file. > > > > Ok for me. > > I'm really happy we can have a sane consensus to this difficult question, > with just few emails! > Thanks guys :) > > PS: I will send a v2 when the easy task of RC1 integration will be done ;) Another request, can you perhaps also fix the script for situations where checkpatch.pl is not in the kernel tree. I've used this script now to check a couple of patchsets, which came back clean, but it turns out that because I was using checkpatch.pl outside the kernel directory, it is passing things it shouldn't. [Thanks to Sergio for pointing this out]. Testing with a known-broken patch, this script indicates all ok, and only reports an error with the --no-tree added to the options inside the script. :-( /Bruce