On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 07:54:40PM +0000, Butler, Siobhan A wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 5:16 PM > > To: Wiles, Keith; Butler, Siobhan A > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming > > > > 2015-04-08 15:53, Wiles, Keith: > > > One of the biggest problems with any style is helping the developer > > > maintain the style. Using some tool does help and I have used astyle > > > before, not bad code formatter. Here is a few that seem to be reasonable. > > > > > > http://astyle.sourceforge.net/ > > > > > > http://uncrustify.sourceforge.net/ > > > > > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/gcgreatcode/ > > > > I'm not sure it's a good idea to convert the codebase automatically. > > The coding style must be a reference for new patches and they must be > > automatically checked with a dedicated checkpatch tool. > > By forbidding patches which don't comply, the codebase will be naturally > > converted over time. > > > > I didn't review this proposal yet. > > My first comment is that it's too long to read :) When a consensus is done, > > it > > must be added with a patch with custom checkpatch addition. > Thanks Thomas, agreed it is a bit of a novel :)- I will refactor with the > comments supplied so far and post a fresh version tomorrow. > Siobhan >
Just wondering here, are we looking to codify what the current predominant coding style in DPDK *is* or what it *should be*? There has been some good discussion on a variety of areas, but if we focus on initially codifying what's there now, some issues become easier to resolve - e.g. discussion of commenting style, since only C89 comments are allowed right now. /Bruce
