On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 04:20:04PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 2:37 PM Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > I'd like a check like (below), to avoid new additions:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/devtools/checkpatches.sh b/devtools/checkpatches.sh
> > > index 34a2e43845..8dae47165e 100755
> > > --- a/devtools/checkpatches.sh
> > > +++ b/devtools/checkpatches.sh
> > > @@ -158,6 +158,14 @@ check_forbidden_additions() { # <patch>
> > > -f $(dirname $(readlink -f
> > > $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk \
> > > "$1" || res=1
> > >
> > > + # '// XXX is not set' must be preferred over '#undef XXX'
> > > + awk -v FOLDERS='config/rte_config.h' \
> > > + -v EXPRESSIONS='#undef' \
> > > + -v RET_ON_FAIL=1 \
> > > + -v MESSAGE='Using "#undef XXX", prefer "// XXX is not
> > > set"' \
> > > + -f $(dirname $(readlink -f
> > > $0))/check-forbidden-tokens.awk \
> > > + "$1" || res=1
> > > +
> > > return $res
> > > }
> > >
> > > Otherwise, the change lgtm.
> > >
> > Good idea. Do you want me to add your check above as a patch to this to
> > make a two-patch set for v2?
>
> If you are fine with the check, I don't mind it is part of this simple patch.
> I can do it when applying if you are okay with it.
>
Yes, I'm fine with it, thanks.
