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 20530430C3; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:46:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE5C142B8B; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:46:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dkmailrelay1.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesystems.com [77.243.40.215]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48055427E9 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:46:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smartserver.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesys.local [192.168.4.10]) by dkmailrelay1.smartsharesystems.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C1F205ED; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:46:06 +0200 (CEST) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] devtools: add tracepoint check in checkpatch Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:46:02 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87B25@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] devtools: add tracepoint check in checkpatch Thread-Index: AQHZUO0mo8TXvfdXGk+LLoGksad4va9ge39AgAAe5ACAlS9yoIAACttQ References: <20230303155811.2751210-1-adwivedi@marvell.com> <20230307120514.2774917-1-adwivedi@marvell.com> <20230307120514.2774917-2-adwivedi@marvell.com> <20230518083341.288fcb82@hermes.local> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_Br=F8rup?= To: "Ankur Dwivedi" , Cc: "Stephen Hemminger" , "Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran" , 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 > From: Ankur Dwivedi [mailto:adwivedi@marvell.com] > Sent: Monday, 21 August 2023 15.54 >=20 > >From: Stephen Hemminger > >Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 9:04 PM > > > = >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >On Thu, 18 May 2023 13:45:29 +0000 > >Ankur Dwivedi wrote: > > > >> >From: Ankur Dwivedi > >> >Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 5:35 PM > >> > > >> >This patch adds a validation in checkpatch tool, to check if a > >> >tracepoint is present in any new function added in cryptodev, > ethdev, > >> >eventdev and mempool library. > >> > > >> >In this patch, the build_map_changes function is copied from > >> >check-symbol- change.sh to check-tracepoint.sh. The > >> >check-tracepoint.sh script uses build_map_changes function to = create > a > >map of functions. > >> >In the map, the newly added functions, added in the experimental > >> >section are identified and their definition are checked for the > >> >presence of tracepoint. The checkpatch return error if the > tracepoint is not > >present. > >> > > >> >For functions for which trace is not needed, they can be added to > >> >devtools/trace-skiplist.txt file. The above tracepoint check will = be > >> >skipped for them. > >> > > >> >Signed-off-by: Ankur Dwivedi > > > >Given the amount of string processing, it would be more readable in > python. > >That is not a show stopper, just a suggestion. >=20 > Hi Thomas, >=20 > Please let me know if the shell script in this patch is fine or would = a > python implementation would be more preferable. >=20 > Regards, > Ankur The bigger question is: Do we really want to change tracepoints in = functions from opt-in to opt-out? In my opinion, opt-in for trace is more appropriate. Nonetheless, having a tool to check for tracepoint presence might still = be useful for library reviewers and maintainers. And such a tool might = be useful for any library, not just the few libraries suggested by this = patch.