Hi On 6/17/21 6:29 AM, Li, Xiaoyun wrote: > Hi > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> >> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 00:32 >> To: Li, Xiaoyun <xiaoyun...@intel.com>; Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Yigit, >> Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Singh, Aman Deep >> <aman.deep.si...@intel.com> >> Subject: [PATCH v2] app/testpmd: send failure logs to stderr >> >> Running with stdout suppressed or redirected for further processing >> is very confusing in the case of errors. Fix it by logging errors and >> warnings to stderr. >> >> Since lines with log messages are touched anyway concatanate split > > Typo: "concatenate" > And it's really good to have those split strings combined. Thanks.
Thanks, fixed in v3. >> format string to make it easier to search using grep. >> >> Fix indent of format string arguments. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> >> --- >> v2: >> - switch from printf() to fpritnf(stderr, ...) in more cases >> - do not inherit acks from the previous version since the patch is >> much bigger >> - fix style in few cases (TAB vs spaces, missing space separtor etc) >> - still don't use TESTPMD_LOG() since the patch does not add new logs. >> Also switching to TESTPMD_LOG() will add "testpmd: " prefix to log >> messages and it is a real change and could be a pain for automation. >> >> app/test-pmd/bpf_cmd.c | 6 +- >> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 957 ++++++++++++++----------- >> app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c | 20 +- >> app/test-pmd/cmdline_mtr.c | 8 +- >> app/test-pmd/cmdline_tm.c | 33 +- >> app/test-pmd/config.c | 452 ++++++------ >> app/test-pmd/csumonly.c | 5 +- >> app/test-pmd/parameters.c | 21 +- >> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 298 ++++---- >> app/test-pmd/util.c | 19 +- >> doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_08.rst | 5 + >> 11 files changed, 1002 insertions(+), 822 deletions(-) > <snip> >> 2.30.2 > > This patch overall looks good to me. > > But there're some warnings about coding styles reported. > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-June/199047.html > Not all of them makes sense. > But can you check ones with QUOTED_WHITESPACE_BEFORE_NEWLINE, > UNSPECIFIED_INT, EMBEDDED_FUNCTION_NAME? > The latter two type of warnings are legacy issues but it'll be good to have > them fixed. Yes, I agree. Fixed. Andrew.
