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 218A3A053A; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 15:54:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05032BB5; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 15:54:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0467CE07 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 15:54:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81AB65C0111; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 05 Aug 2020 09:54:54 -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= TXQOM32S69ujeJTmCtwEOiPx04U7qVBb5wNen4x3KR8=; b=cmrisrwtjML5lEhM UGIKggY+ZOQnaVJFLLpBYAFe3q47PHeGH4iNx2OKrijZCX0LQMo6DDxRISg6IXTs +IOHcERj0v4K7SqwtzeiZIjH6OvB9TYZ94K4FgJ8LhSpPbjLXTyIZKfGb6NtU2eF KmYH1uh49JcjAqoaq2+5LfTzRfmNAGmZGXRjY+xebfh8xSqIDcotUKlM5A2vPEL6 FdSmU9wRsUpApWUykRoGKHu2hRi4+fiOBttQWNoe0g68Np/Gyy+A6n5t5UynAWwv KDsFuSn4HW5G74Ik7n079cjKELlj6N7nmpL/2uCpm1x3F/3k6wgUOuCUMF+x30lW Oga5HQ== 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=fm3; bh=TXQOM32S69ujeJTmCtwEOiPx04U7qVBb5wNen4x3K R8=; b=p8R5me8PcnENMs8iKSBExxQmsPik/lI28hzrDwXMGbYctoo1y8Rp5k0vD opnnMwcgOL0DgvmLkSrVtxuuDX27mgVnFkPD5xXy8C/O1eBFYQyN4Qmx/tXR60CF 7od3aezuIByLHxN3Qd7kOih9QdpWRzDStFtji9T6ubHeSLYw/LOyMHA7H2bjuPmf stWuq4dkvCKWV+bRuKRzguYgIoDfJrtEt+WhVUWQlIBLbnsynAGYIxSvOpFnr7yH z6vUi/hVaLyhCQhpcH1vfJ6eX4WLNJdmZVb+MgvsB/sLGGD203zWxKNpL4NbtL1o u+M/uadko6Vk697q0E9VjzcnpvRXQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrjeekgdejfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertd dttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehm ohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeegle fghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeuieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddt fedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght 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 4C69430600B1; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 09:54:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Adrian Moreno Cc: dev@dpdk.org, chenbo.xia@intel.com, david.marchand@redhat.com Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 15:54:52 +0200 Message-ID: <3554258.jWZQtkDrRB@thomas> In-Reply-To: <3cabbc35-c774-bfa1-1584-1a4d911c4090@redhat.com> References: <20200804073837.88189-1-amorenoz@redhat.com> <3247837.ecEkxrgKqk@thomas> <3cabbc35-c774-bfa1-1584-1a4d911c4090@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] devtools: ignore PREFER_FALLTHROUGH 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" 05/08/2020 15:34, Adrian Moreno: > Hi Thomas, > > On 8/5/20 11:12 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 04/08/2020 09:38, Adrian Moreno: > >> The PREFER_FALLTHROUGH check warns if a passthrough comment is found > >> because, in the kernel, the special macro "fallthrough" is prefered. > >> > >> Since that keyword is not defined in DPDK, ignore the warning. > > > > We could ask why not defining a similar keyword? > > > > Surely, we can also add the keyword. Given that unintended fallthrough is > already protected by the "MISSING_BREAK" and that fallthrough comments are > already used in DPDK, I thought it made sense to ignore the check. Yes this patch makes sense. And anyway, we'll never use the same keyword as in kernel. > If you prefer to add the keyword, let me ask: > - Where is the right place for it? Maybe rte_common.h? Yes > - Should all the comments be replaced with the pseudo-keyword? Yes Before doing that, please send a RFC. I remember we already tried that but failed. > >> --- a/devtools/checkpatches.sh > >> +++ b/devtools/checkpatches.sh > >> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ VOLATILE,PREFER_PACKED,PREFER_ALIGNED,PREFER_PRINTF,\ > >> PREFER_KERNEL_TYPES,BIT_MACRO,CONST_STRUCT,\ > >> SPLIT_STRING,LONG_LINE_STRING,C99_COMMENT_TOLERANCE,\ > >> LINE_SPACING,PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT,NETWORKING_BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE,\ > >> -NEW_TYPEDEFS,COMPARISON_TO_NULL" > >> +NEW_TYPEDEFS,COMPARISON_TO_NULL,PREFER_FALLTHROUGH" > > > > I would add this option between PREFER_KERNEL_TYPES and BIT_MACRO > > to maintain a bit of logic ordering. > > > OK. I'll reorder it if the final decision is to ignore the check. Yes thanks