From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BB07CF2 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 17:41:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Apr 2018 08:41:27 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,302,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="193078149" Received: from aburakov-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.23.81]) ([10.252.23.81]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Apr 2018 08:41:24 -0700 To: Arnon Warshavsky , Aaron Conole Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Doherty, Declan" , jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, Bruce Richardson , "Yigit, Ferruh" , dev@dpdk.org References: <1524117669-25729-1-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com> <1524117669-25729-12-git-send-email-arnon@qwilt.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: <5db2ed20-646f-817d-b849-d57d68b8a2d2@intel.com> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 16:41:23 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 11/11] devtools: prevent new instances of rte_panic and rte_exit 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 15:41:29 -0000 On 20-Apr-18 3:01 PM, Arnon Warshavsky wrote: > > > I don't think rte_panic should be considered forbidden.  Rather their > use should be flagged (as this patch does).  However, the 'exit 1' > (which will return a failure for the automatic checkpatch script bot) > might end up problematic as maintainers might consider it a patch that > is not ready. > > I wouldn't object to this patch, but just think you might want to change > the print to something like: > >   WARN: Are you sure you meant to use "$expression"? > > > I can definitely change the warning text , but I think the whole point > is actually to prevent future panic calls. > If it were a recommendation, one can never converge with the attempt to > get rid of them, as not throwing a panic is a lot harder. > > Thanks > Arnon > Warning is enough to get it automatically flagged on review. Final decision is up to maintainers/committers as to whether accept such code. -- Thanks, Anatoly