Re: [dpdk-dev] Solarflare PMD submission question

[Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>]

On 11/21/2016 01:30 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 8:59 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 2016-11-21 11:46, Andrew Rybchenko:
>>> On 11/21/2016 11:19 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>> Before submitting 56 patches I'd like to double-check that checkpatch.pl
>>>>> errors (for example, because of assignments in the 'if' condition,
>>>>> parenthesis around return value) is not a show-stopper for base driver
>>>>> import.
>>>> You can run checkpatches.sh or send the patches to checkpatch@dpdk.org.
>>>> The script check-git-log.sh can also guide you for the expected formatting.
>>> Yes, I did it and it helped me to find and fix some coding standard
>>> violations.
>>>
>>> The problem with libefx (base driver) is that it is existing code which
>>> follows FreeBSD and illumos coding conventions which contradict to
>>> checkpatches.sh sometimes (e.g. require parenthesis around return
>>> value). Other example of error produced by checkpatches.sh is assign in
>>> if. It is widely used in the code to assign return code value and
>>> compare it vs 0 in one line. It is not a coding standard conflict, but
>>> it is very wide-spread in the code (so changing it will produce too many
>>> changes not strictly required/useful).
>>>
>>> So, may I repeat my question if it is a show-stopper for base driver or
>>> acceptable.
>> I would vote to accept these minor style warnings for the base driver.
>> Ferruh, any comment?
>>
> For _base driver_, I am also OK for having checkpatch warnings.

In term of checkpatshes.sh return value in parenthesis is an error (not 
warning). Hopefully it changes nothing.

Andrew.