>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ankur Dwivedi
>Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 7:37 PM
>To: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; tho...@monjalon.net; Jerin Jacob <jer...@marvell.com>
>Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] devtools: add tracepoint check in
>checkpatch
>
>>On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 06:03:58 +0000
>>Ankur Dwivedi <adwiv...@marvell.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Please let me know if this patch series can be merged in DPDK or
>>> >> if there are
>>> >any comments.
>>> >
>>> >Not sure why the patch got ignored.
>>> >Perhaps if check-tracepoint was run first against existing code; add
>>> >to check- patch later.
>>>
>>> check-tracepoint reads a patch and checks if a newly added function
>>> in a
>>library has the trace in it or not.
>>> For existing code trace can be added manually. Trace was added for
>>> existing
>>functions in 23.03 release.
>>> >
>>> >And the skip list is empty, is that right?
>>> Yes.
>>> If trace is not required for a new library function, the function
>>> name can be
>>added in skiplist.
>>> The checkpatch will ignore trace check for that function.
>>> > is all of existing cryptodev ethdev ... ok now?
>>>
>>> No, it's not completely ok. Few functions does not have trace added.
>>Majority have trace added.
>>
>>
>>I wonder if a coccinelle script might be better for this.
>
>Not sure if newly added functions can be detected in coccinelle script. In this
>patch the already existing build_map_changes shell function was detecting
>this.
Let me know if any more comments or changes are required in this patch.
>
>>Rather than adding more checks to already annoying checkpatch.
