From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB4FA0A04; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:59:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B03141125; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:59:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA6A141124 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:59:15 +0100 (CET) IronPort-SDR: qoluJ2qQ5RdePxBYbojpj431XihwaQ86GsWMjrmZwIyEOZkkIdc/A6irFvyB6roV/NlKLXoGs/ SW3GvGg0uEEw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9864"; a="197225494" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,349,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="197225494" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jan 2021 06:59:14 -0800 IronPort-SDR: nrI/w/N+nwbbPuA3Qdj75FjfrWkb7+EaYlD/334bW8N3960XUIQXip06zhVOTxXSwJY4TLpBu6 /TaiWdIE6hRA== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,349,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="354326222" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.8.25]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 15 Jan 2021 06:59:11 -0800 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 14:59:08 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org, david.marchand@redhat.com, Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>, Yipeng Wang <yipeng1.wang@intel.com>, Sameh Gobriel <sameh.gobriel@intel.com>, Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>, Vladimir Medvedkin <vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com>, Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>, Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com>, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, Cristian Dumitrescu <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>, adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com Message-ID: <20210115145908.GD1487@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20210114110606.21142-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <9b696a65-2012-7ae8-d840-1515f8bf140b@intel.com> <20210115115905.GB1487@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <4629518.ttYPrCFMyY@thomas> <20210115145541.GC1487@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210115145541.GC1487@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 16/19] app/chkincs: add chkincs app to verify headers X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:55:41PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:09:25PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 15/01/2021 12:59, Bruce Richardson: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:51:49AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > > On 1/15/2021 11:10 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > > To verify that all DPDK headers are ok for inclusion directly in a C > > > > > file, and are not missing any other pre-requisite headers, we can > > > > > auto-generate for each header an empty C file that includes that header. > > > > > Compiling these files will throw errors if any header has unmet > > > > > dependencies. > > > > > > > > > > The list of headers to check is based of the "headers" value returned from > > > > > each library's meson.build file. However, since not all headers are for > > > > > direct inclusion, add a build variable "headers_no_chkincs" to list those > > > > > headers and skip checking them. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > > * add maintainers entry > > > > > * distribute exception list among meson.build files. > > > > > > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 4 ++++ > > > > > app/chkincs/gen_c_file_for_header.py | 12 ++++++++++ > > > > > app/chkincs/main.c | 4 ++++ > > > > > app/chkincs/meson.build | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > +1 to have this kind of tool to check, but it is not an application like > > > > others in the 'app' folder, what do you think placing it under 'devtools' or > > > > 'buildtools'? > > > > > > Couple of reasons why it's placed in app. > > > > > > 1. We previously had a "chkincs" app in DPDK which was kept in the app > > > folder > > > 2. It allows us to reuse the build infrastructure for building apps, rather > > > than reduplicating it. > > > 3. We don't have any compilable code currently in the devtools folder, and > > > even in buildtools the pmdinfogen app is going to go away. > > > > > > That being said, none of those reasons are major issues that can't be > > > worked around if the consensus is to move it. > > > > It could be easily in devtools if it was a script. > > By the way, we already have devtools/check-includes.sh > > If your solution is better, please remove this script. > > > I only discovered the script existed when doing the v2 of this patchset, > since it showed up in some grep calls I did for exception cases. I'm not > sure that either approach is necessarily better, it's just right now that > the script is unused (and also unknown) which is why I did this cleanup > work. > > Here is how I see the current comparison between two approaches: > * Script as advantage in that it performs C++ checks as well as C > * Script also allows passing arbitrary additional C flags into checks for > higher levels of compliance, but I'm not sure this is something I like as > I'd rather have standardisation here across all headers than have some > headers more pedantic-friendly than others. > * Main downside of the script is that is works off directories rather than > a list of files, which means it requires maintenance of the exception > list in the script, rather than in the build definition files where we call > out the headers to be installed > > I'm honestly fine either way on this (as with directory where > implementation lives) - main thing is to have the checking done, rather > than ignored. > And I (obviously) forgot to mention that the existing script is not currently integrated into existing build or build-test scripts. I haven't looked into how complex this would be, but it would require investigation time.