Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [RFC PATCH 0/2] introduce __rte_internal tag

[Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>]

On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 03:14:42PM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote:
><snip as this is getting long>
> 
> I don't have any strong opinion on name prefix vs marking as __rte_internal.
> Or combination of both. I am fine any approach.
> 
> I have only strong option on not to  induce objdump dependency for checkpatch. 
> For the reason mentioned in http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-June/134160.html.
> 

Sorry, in my haste I didn't fully adress this in your previous email

I'm really uncertain what you mean by introducing a checkpatch dependency on
objdump here.  Theres nothing preventing you from running checkpatch before you
build the library.  The only thing checkpatch does in dpdk is scan the patches
for sytle violations, and for changes in the map file for movement to and from
the EXPERIMENTAL section (i.e. no use of objdump).

My patch modifies check-experimental-syms.sh (adding an objdump scan for
INTERNAL symbols, and renaming the script to check-special-syms.sh to be more
meaningful).  That script however, is not run by checkpatch, its run during
compilation of the library to ensure that any symbol in a map file is also
tagged with __rte_internal in the corresponding object).  Theres no path from
checkpatches to check-experimental-syms.sh

What I meant in my last comment was that any dependency on objdump in
check-[experimental|special]-syms.sh already existed prior to this patch.

So I'm unsure why you think checkpatches has a dependency.

Neil