From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78AA7CEC for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:56:10 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Apr 2018 01:56:09 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,464,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="47103108" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.51]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 18 Apr 2018 01:56:07 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:56:06 +0100 Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:56:05 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Scott Branden , Stephen Hemminger , dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20180418085605.GA111744@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20180417214919.8246-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <2994859.WyYqfpDCHC@xps> <4245883.kl7A9e8lPX@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4245883.kl7A9e8lPX@xps> Organization: Intel Research and Development Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] checkpatch: don't complain about SPDX tag format X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:56:11 -0000 On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:19:07AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 18/04/2018 00:11, Scott Branden: > > On 18-04-17 03:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 17/04/2018 23:49, Stephen Hemminger: > > >> IMHO would have been better to use the kernel SPDX style and > > >> keep the check but that appears to be a minority opinion. > > > > > > I think it is better to work on checkpatch itself. > > > When defining our SPDX style, Linux one was not definitive. > > > Do you think we can ask the Linux community to support our SPDX style? > > > > > I think it better to simply follow the Linux community defacto style > > rather than go your own way. > > But our way is better! :) > And it has been decided in the Technical Board. > As a general issue, I think we could do with having our own checkpatch-like script for performing addition DPDK-specific code-checks *after* Linux checkpatch ones. That is, reuse Linux check patch checks as much as possible, but have other checks too. For example, check for use of strcpy or strncpy (or snprintf with "%s") and suggest replacing with strlcpy. If we did have our own extension script, we could put our own SPDX format check there too. Thoughts, or any volunteers to look into this? /Bruce