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 C7C95A0093; Tue, 10 May 2022 16:23:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E6A42834; Tue, 10 May 2022 16:23:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498B84069D for ; Tue, 10 May 2022 16:23:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B225C00C1; Tue, 10 May 2022 10:23:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 May 2022 10:23:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1652192599; x= 1652278999; bh=UsHC89NQq+sU+PTVYrIZJBTfuz36VLP7MlnQDhTMzus=; b=A I+MJt8TkRr/UadAByYOH7Cch3KMrfb/LD4u6IPe0hvDasnky1tftCCux004c/YWV xiQl3Wr9819gQFrfifmZlAB0nYYLEdSMSZef3w8pA5GXPe1U0fLu06rOtGuG/cgh zL3+6vDMPf74bS5OhVxLHrXPPNNwV8PZP0n/8vPnYQ3Mi/EJxyCEqCLskrkK+P5m aOM4NZp71jGxEEFTe0mLpuk+3fumcfo024lQibVFRus+b0G8lAAEtcJYQyElzgZw e4HzGTi4Xe5OSj5JT/uKFkSpY5fG8h/hchcg3wA7Ab+oZ2NNNe5F5YT8f10eCnDm NrHcSMlpNypWch9EAgbdw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1652192599; x=1652278999; bh=UsHC89NQq+sU+ PTVYrIZJBTfuz36VLP7MlnQDhTMzus=; b=BULXdZrxZgMbpOzYYVC8///mOeNGf 3aebl7tgFh9ULvR/FTXm9T2VaM6oyMu5rYJjTpQXpj5Fh7qY+9uWyWA4rvlxb4pv qiSddmrg4I/w461Rq8IgJ+HnoBfqQ6N9AtX/+17eht+ckwXm1lDBgJ3uxemLzIa8 IVoz3sjYDHIQrGEQQfGStEgOY92RxPjNYwnMSEu5JmepFHXl3ijBOIJahikefPRI +2AGQGG6YgRbN6nOt61b7RivHAkvZMXr4/T3XRnV4lxNT+7Q8J9aLclhnO9NGhHz 490eZp3WAw4Gj4DFQjbg2LFWOVMk7Reu3bbRQjjvek4EMvmIMAD0VMN2Q== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrgedugdejudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgedttdeljeejgeffkeekkedtjeevtdehvedtkeeivdeuuedviedu vdelveejueejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 10 May 2022 10:23:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: =?utf-8?B?U3RhbmlzxYJhdw==?= Kardach Cc: David Marchand , dev , Frank Zhao , Sam Grove , Marcin Wojtas , upstream@semihalf.com, Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Introduce support for RISC-V architecture Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 16:23:15 +0200 Message-ID: <2555017.k3LOHGUjKi@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20220505173003.3242618-1-kda@semihalf.com> <23271621.ouqheUzb2q@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 10/05/2022 16:00, Stanis=C5=82aw Kardach: > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:32 PM Thomas Monjalon wro= te: >=20 > > 10/05/2022 13:21, Stanis=C5=82aw Kardach: > > > > > > Using "Sponsored by:" does not trigger checks above (still feels like= a > > > hack). > > > > Agree it is a hack, > > and not having the hyphen breaks my Vim colouring :) > > > > We can ignore this checkpatch warning, that's fine. > > > > Just to be sure before I post V2 - do you mean to ignore BAD_SIGN_OFF in > checkpatches.sh or rather somewhere in CI configuration? Yes I mean CI will return BAD_SIGN_OFF, we'll take note, but it won't be a blocker to accept the patch. The CI can return minor warnings, that's OK. We prefer avoiding the warnings, because it is more work to check all the warnings manually, but I don't see a better solution here.