Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] examples/l2fwd: fix checkpatch reported issues

["Joseph, Anoob" <Anoob.Joseph@cavium.com>]

Hi Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: 29 October 2018 07:49
> To: Joseph, Anoob <Anoob.Joseph@cavium.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Pablo de Lara
> <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>; Athreya, Narayana Prasad
> <NarayanaPrasad.Athreya@cavium.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] examples/l2fwd: fix checkpatch reported
> issues
> 
> External Email
> 
> 08/10/2018 14:35, Ferruh Yigit:
> > On 10/8/2018 12:29 PM, Joseph, Anoob wrote:
> > > On 08-10-2018 16:30, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > >> On 10/8/2018 11:41 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote:
> > >>> This patchset fixes multiple issues reported by checkpatch in
> > >>> l2fwd code base. These issues would be flagged for any new copy of
> > >>> the file and hence, fixing at the source.
> > >>>
> > >>> Anoob Joseph (8):
> > >>>    examples/l2fwd: remove quoted white space before newline
> > >>>    examples/l2fwd: need space between two args
> > >>>    examples/l2fwd: else should follow close brace
> > >>>    examples/l2fwd: replace bare usage of 'unsigned'
> > >>>    examples/l2fwd: follow convention for block comments
> > >>>    examples/l2fwd: limit line to 80 char
> > >>>    examples/l2fwd: space required between elements
> > >>>    examples/l2fwd: remove null initialisation
> > >> Hi Anoob,
> > >>
> > >> I am not sure if it is good idea to get syntax only fixes, I would
> > >> prefer to get syntax fixes when some other code touches that area.
> > > I'm preparing a new copy of l2fwd with support for eventmode(as
> > > suggested in,
> > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-August/109717.html). All
> > > these issues were flagged when I did the copy. What would be the
> > > better approach in that case? Fix it in just the new application or
> > > fix the source? Fixing in just the new app would mean, the two
> > > versions will have a diff at the time of copy.
> >
> > I see, make sense to not create syntax diff copied and original
> > versions, I missed the new copy part. So OK for this patch.
> 
> It was said that there will be not so much common code.
> So why bothering to reformat the original example?

There will be common code. In fact most of the code could actually be shared. But we are creating a copy and starting from there because Bruce didn't want any changes in the existing app.

> Anyway, if such cleanup is worth before duplicating, please insert it in the same
> patchset as the new example.

These fixes will be there in the new app. I'll add this in the patchset when I share the new app.

Thanks,
Anoob