From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89325A0524; Thu, 6 May 2021 01:13:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 451CF410DB; Thu, 6 May 2021 01:13:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E52A40040; Thu, 6 May 2021 01:13:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0385C018F; Wed, 5 May 2021 19:13:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 05 May 2021 19:13:10 -0400 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=fm1; bh= u7AJ3HxXSeJqjhRu5iW9IeH7iNyEAzR9sTDYxlRubzA=; b=dxgo9vp+jDbW8XmS AWx0GK2GG9bUdIsxsQ0FlZLz+aO41V8cL2FAuJrd3M1g7XR9JtjjHQuCeIzCJxM0 J1rOqgll3BnttjVZG1pLOEOOn1pDRjSlIyAnNZCOWQQJ9xszrd8R+wP4g+0/cFbX BnFPJj7Ha8u4seJH/Zs6S5R5T8BfcDErMXZBIwwTs8E1CuCaOW/HkuX+HR7jm19H 80fcCn5nhKLZjMWxbjJcLuceLjdY4L003j2OzcIcb9P7RGXFC1jSpLIVeNqBalNA V3fr4+I75Y/WtY8ifTYXMYZK7vAM2F36YPv8Tedhc4KiR8lJxi+bo0KHkyQOu7pO 2S8c4w== 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=fm2; bh=u7AJ3HxXSeJqjhRu5iW9IeH7iNyEAzR9sTDYxlRub zA=; b=pYwVffl/zla4EMZQokIaS0UYvgJC4kcxF8TXw1F1gGQZ+ygIrJHaXIWMD wjZtysGEsMr8KZF+UqAo7O3/7ZFcX6Kn43Td6EBGcC78bwE5hE9QZ1rL+Ez2ZElq KuMpEACtCfg+MzaqGlocgtLbtERvtTEyQsU0957tay3ZMncjl9GfIhjrGqbaPBEp P+k7yMNu7dX2sGTCgR3GDaPICgVTs2hg7dB2dYFTzmpoeADQVb9KaREZ9tl7J82U kiegg8Iobyex7MrUtezcjVjXn0iNqRm2g1rex8wDTVQXzo3LlOBG1d1rEySdcUcc y4zu+OI7dKBfJL45CivOEHz79a8Eg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdefledgudehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf 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; Wed, 5 May 2021 19:13:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Tyler Retzlaff Cc: Dmitry Kozlyuk , stable@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , John McNamara Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 01:13:07 +0200 Message-ID: <2280101.VUMvbZbiro@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20210505224521.GA32065@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> References: <20210502025656.29910-1-dmitry.kozliuk@gmail.com> <10660804.QYKOPib57F@thomas> <20210505224521.GA32065@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] examples/rxtx_callbacks: fix port ID format specifier X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" 06/05/2021 00:45, Tyler Retzlaff: > as a side question, what is the projects stance on getting more warnings > clean? there are a few not enabled that i'd really like to see e.g. > format, conversion, truncation etc.. > > i looked at lib/eal previously and there are... hundreds? of instances so > it's a non-trivial task. the problem i see is somehow getting to a > warnings clean state where we can enable -Werror in the CI pipeline but > at the same time figuring out how to prevent new instances from > appearing until we do. I don't understand the question. We are already supposed to be warning-free, and -werror should be enabled in all CI labs. What are the gaps?