On 15.05.2019 23:32, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@samsung.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 15.05.2019 19:13, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>>>> Hi Aaron.
>>>>
>>>> Robot complains about lines not touched by this patch.
>>>> This is strange.
>>>
>>> I suspect that it's because of file renaming.
>>
>> Yes, I think you're correct.
>>
>>> What git version you're using? Or maybe some special options?
>>
>> I don't think it matters the version (I just tried locally with my git
>> 2.19.1).  I think when the diff is being generated via git for
>> processing (the robot doesn't patch file directly, it uses checkpatch.py
>> -1), it includes all of old file as '-' and all of the new file as '+',
>> so the robot will see it.
>>
>> I get a similar checkpatch complaint just doing a git mv on the file and
>> trying to commit, because I have checkpatch setup as a commit hook.
> 
> I'll re-work the robot to do the git-am and then run against the
> original patch file.  That will suppress these kinds of issues.

This will probably help.
However, I don't see any issues while using "checkpatch.py -1".

On my Ubuntu:

$ ./utilities/checkpatch.py -1
== Checking 6921c382c9fd ("netdev-offload: Rename offload providers.") ==
Lines checked: 263, no obvious problems found

$ git --version
git version 2.17.1

And on my FreeBSD VM:

# ./utilities/checkpatch.py -1                                                  
                            
== Checking 6a7b77036f3c ("netdev-offload: Rename offload providers.") ==       
                                                     
Lines checked: 263, no obvious problems found                                   
                                                     
                                                                                
                                                     
# git --version                                                                 
                            
git version 2.20.1


Also, this patch is exactly same in all previous versions since v2.
And there was no complains for them.

> 
>>>> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
>>>>
>>>> On 15.05.2019 19:05, 0-day Robot wrote:
>>>>> Bleep bloop.  Greetings Ilya Maximets, I am a robot and I have tried out 
>>>>> your patch.
>>>>> Thanks for your contribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting.  See the details below.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> checkpatch:
>>>>> ERROR: Improper whitespace around control block
>>>>> #1065 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:173:
>>>>>     HMAP_FOR_EACH_WITH_HASH(data, ufid_node, ufid_hash, &ufid_tc) {
>>>>>
>>>>> ERROR: Improper whitespace around control block
>>>>> #1135 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:243:
>>>>>     HMAP_FOR_EACH_WITH_HASH(data, ufid_node, ufid_hash, &ufid_tc) {
>>>>>
>>>>> ERROR: Improper whitespace around control block
>>>>> #1165 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:273:
>>>>>     HMAP_FOR_EACH_WITH_HASH(data, tc_node, tc_hash,  &ufid_tc) {
>>>>>
>>>>> ERROR: Improper whitespace around control block
>>>>> #1209 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:317:
>>>>>     HMAP_FOR_EACH_WITH_HASH(data, node, hash, &prios) {
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: Line is 80 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>> #1471 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:579:
>>>>>         match_set_nw_src_masked(match, key->ipv4.ipv4_src, 
>>>>> mask->ipv4.ipv4_src);
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: Line is 80 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>> #1472 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:580:
>>>>>         match_set_nw_dst_masked(match, key->ipv4.ipv4_dst, 
>>>>> mask->ipv4.ipv4_dst);
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: Line is 82 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>> #1545 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:653:
>>>>>                 size_t set_offset = nl_msg_start_nested(buf, 
>>>>> OVS_ACTION_ATTR_SET);
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: Line is 83 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>> #1550 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:658:
>>>>>                     nl_msg_put_be64(buf, OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_ID, 
>>>>> action->encap.id);
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: Line is 81 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>> #1600 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:708:
>>>>>                 nl_msg_put_u32(buf, OVS_ACTION_ATTR_OUTPUT, 
>>>>> odp_to_u32(outport));
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: Line is 84 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>> #1618 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:726:
>>>>>                        || (flower->offloaded_state == 
>>>>> TC_OFFLOADED_STATE_UNDEFINED);
>>>>>
>>>>> ERROR: Improper whitespace around control block
>>>>> #1756 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:864:
>>>>>     NL_ATTR_FOR_EACH_UNSAFE(tun_attr, tun_left, tunnel, tunnel_len) {
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: Line is 85 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>> #2026 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:1134:
>>>>>         flower.mask.tunnel.id = (tnl->flags & FLOW_TNL_F_KEY) ? 
>>>>> tnl_mask->tun_id : 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> ERROR: Improper whitespace around control block
>>>>> #2189 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:1297:
>>>>>     NL_ATTR_FOR_EACH(nla, left, actions, actions_len) {
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: Line is 81 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>> #2191 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:1299:
>>>>>             VLOG_DBG_RL(&rl, "Can only support %d actions", 
>>>>> flower.action_count);
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: Line is 80 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>> #2311 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:1419:
>>>>>         VLOG_ERR_RL(&error_rl, "flow get failed (dev %s prio %d handle 
>>>>> %d): %s",
>>>>>
>>>>> Lines checked: 4898, Warnings: 9, Errors: 6
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please check this out.  If you feel there has been an error, please email 
>>>>> acon...@bytheb.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 0-day Robot
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev mailing list
>> d...@openvswitch.org
>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to