Test-Label: checkpatch
Test-Status: WARNING
http://dpdk.org/patch/83680

_coding style issues_


WARNING:TYPO_SPELLING: 'privious' may be misspelled - perhaps 'previous'?
#56: 
privious or future packets.

WARNING:TYPO_SPELLING: 'returend' may be misspelled - perhaps 'returned'?
#116: 
   which will result in the flow-id returend to the application

WARNING:TYPO_SPELLING: 'attache' may be misspelled - perhaps 'attaché'?
#348: FILE: lib/librte_ethdev/rte_sft.h:145:
+ * - action SFT: retrieve SFT flow context and attache it to the processed

WARNING:TYPO_SPELLING: 'sate' may be misspelled - perhaps 'state'?
#356: FILE: lib/librte_ethdev/rte_sft.h:153:
+ * undefined sate attached to the packet meaning that the flow is not

WARNING:TYPO_SPELLING: 'sate' may be misspelled - perhaps 'state'?
#383: FILE: lib/librte_ethdev/rte_sft.h:180:
+ * - analyze user-defined flow state and CT state (see state & ct_sate fields

WARNING:TYPO_SPELLING: 'Incase' may be misspelled - perhaps 'In case'?
#713: FILE: lib/librte_ethdev/rte_sft.h:510:
+ * Incase the mbuf is out of order or fragmented the mbuf_out will be NULL.

WARNING:TYPO_SPELLING: 'allways' may be misspelled - perhaps 'always'?
#716: FILE: lib/librte_ethdev/rte_sft.h:513:
+ * consumed and the mbuf_out will allways be NULL.

WARNING:TYPO_SPELLING: 'destory' may be misspelled - perhaps 'destroy'?
#1221: FILE: lib/librte_ethdev/rte_sft_driver.h:134:
+typedef int *(*sft_entry_destory_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,

WARNING:TYPO_SPELLING: 'destory' may be misspelled - perhaps 'destroy'?
#1264: FILE: lib/librte_ethdev/rte_sft_driver.h:177:
+	sft_entry_destory_t sft_entry_destory;

WARNING:TYPO_SPELLING: 'destory' may be misspelled - perhaps 'destroy'?
#1264: FILE: lib/librte_ethdev/rte_sft_driver.h:177:
+	sft_entry_destory_t sft_entry_destory;

total: 0 errors, 10 warnings, 1128 lines checked