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 at 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.
