From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F0CA0524; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 10:55:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6AE2C2E; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 10:55:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F36F64 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 10:55:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424675C0105; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 04:55:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 07 Nov 2020 04:55:44 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= oiwBCeSvXSwp54vXo9uGcHzSmfcczh9HwUM9MLaZva4=; b=c8bAr9xc/Qm1IvRM CoQRDD40K8NR7BTpgyw5NqmEd5CphwFFkPNwhckCs67pcEVFTBssZkM4FAoR6Zsw yCxM/B/KXAbEtAZtLYwrviAzj5olU4nh64XlO2y1pX7MpwaNxJGlz5OR8ld101KM G6afeuVFBJF6XOOKTMFrHCoBA+C3lg8RcwDIugkIYucJSQOmpc73Rb3weAzcIiKh Ia+NxqDxeD5KBK2zPu5IQEK8hlu1lCtV5rP7RbAklBr+0ZWIDMC2AvR/q7NnALni SmpzriuK6VOnvoxQvk/w+kUh95VHTN/uBtG0KtngP+x150C6I/Po7tngNnpKAq7b eVNKyQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=oiwBCeSvXSwp54vXo9uGcHzSmfcczh9HwUM9MLaZv a4=; b=P4fz/iFq/1r91eYBvT3NYiXqmHnVN6hZqGyE5RdIuvxDwWj+ji1WqcJjH +ZWhAD1vIXzqW5XpSMDLwCcWjRAVh5G+C9/5EBLUxI3XP53U5z4Y4uKgrBEY6TnU DUTn/RQIn4RKHf0B0VSW+9xiStfqjm2I9xh7yQ4/4I4Vy+1Gw2tvXp7EfmihdvI4 8XdDZj0hWgCID+qlP4JXtjVpNYSv6cScyPfPo1H+9BLNJSoKQ8JWzvoGpvp5/BYf GDLLxYb5DsbXhLcpKqQ3sUSPDzB4FW7MCO6FPoAkTac5YF8NVJf+GGBoPml9uA5T TRLSJI4HZiRGcKGbJLIlXVlf2v+7A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudduuddguddtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B4C42306005B; Sat, 7 Nov 2020 04:55:42 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Honnappa Nagarahalli Cc: 'Ferruh Yigit' , Jiawen Wu , "dev@dpdk.org" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "konstantin.ananyev@intel.com" , nd Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2020 10:55:40 +0100 Message-ID: <2264465.1eNBMUU6Sa@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20201019085415.82207-1-jiawenwu@trustnetic.com> <1638514.6lRH5zx6jk@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 00/58] net: txgbe PMD 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 06/11/2020 20:56, Honnappa Nagarahalli: > > 06/11/2020 19:21, Honnappa Nagarahalli: > > > > 05/11/2020 09:55, Jiawen Wu: > > > > > On Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:55 AM, Jiawen Wu wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, November 5, 2020 1:24 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > > > > > > On 11/3/2020 11:08 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > > When pulling in the main branch, I see some checkpatches > > > > > > > > warnings (in order of criticality): > > > > > > > > Using rte_smp_[r/w]mb > > > > > > > > Using rte_panic/rte_exit > > > > > > > > Using compiler attribute directly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please could you fix them (at least first two) before the second > > series? > > > > > > Thomas, IMO, these should result in errors in checkpatch, not just warnings. > > > Do you see any issues? > > > > The problem is that there are too many false positives in checkpatch. > > These two, mentioned above, should be pretty straight forward. Yes > Have you seen any false positives with these> No What do you propose to distinguish warnings and errors in patchwork? We can have a different return value in the script to categorize the checkpatch test in the right patchwork column.