2015-10-29 13:24, Bruce Richardson: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-10-29 13:33, David Marchand: > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at > > > 6wind.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +for p in "$@" ; do > > > > + printf -- "\n### $p\n\n" > > > > + report=$($DPDK_CHECKPATCH_PATH $options "$p" 2>/dev/null) > > > > + [ $? -ne 0 ] || continue > > > > + printf '%s\n' "$report" | head -n -6 > > > > + status=$(($status + 1)) > > > > +done > > > > +exit $status > > > > > > > > > > I prefer when checking scripts only complain when something is wrong :-) > > > So I would only display the file name if checkpatch complains. > > > > Yes I'll move the first printf after the "continue". > > Ok, but perhaps instead we can get a print at the end of how many files were > checked. I'm concerned about the case where we think we have checked > something and > it's ok, when in fact we have actually had an error in our command and e.g. > not checked > any files at all. The printing of the filename helps give a guarantee that the > script is doing the right thing, so if it goes away, I'd hope for some other > method > to ensure that.
I agree with both of you. I could suggest something but I'm afraid it will be difficult to have a consensus between a "quiet tool" and a "double check verbose tool". As it is a really critical piece of code, I think we should have a meeting with a technical steering comittee ;) ... or we can add an option: -q or -v ? Debate is open :D
