Thanks to Yigit Ferruh and Wenzhuo for your guide. Several months ago, I download checkpatch.pl and put it in /root/bin/. In /root/.bash_profile in my server, there is line :export DPDK_CHECKPATCH_PATH=/root/bin/checkpatch.pl Before I send this patch, I have run checkpath.sh to check it and it show no error. ./scripts/checkpatch.sh -v v2-0001-eal-*.patch
By search ' != 0', there are many lines in many modules of DPDK. So I think ' !=0' is OK. > -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 7:04 PM > To: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; Dai, Wei <wei.dai at intel.com>; > dev at dpdk.org; Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>; > david.marchand at 6wind.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal/linuxapp: fix return value check of > mknod() > > Hi Wenzhuo, > > On 11/16/2016 3:28 AM, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote: > > Hi Wei, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Wei Dai > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10:41 AM > >> To: dev at dpdk.org; Burakov, Anatoly; david.marchand at 6wind.com; Dai, > >> Wei > >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal/linuxapp: fix return value check > >> of mknod() > >> > >> In function pci_mknod_uio_dev() in lib/librte_eal/eal/eal_pci_uio.c, > >> The return value of mknod() is ret, not f got by fopen(). > >> So the value of ret should be checked for mknod(). > >> > >> Fixes: 67c536bdad93 ("pci: move uio mapping in a dedicated file") > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Wei Dai <wei.dai at intel.com> > >> --- > >> fix my local git setting and send same patch again to make merging > >> easier > >> > >> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_uio.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_uio.c > >> b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_uio.c > >> index 1786b75..3e4ffb5 100644 > >> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_uio.c > >> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_uio.c > >> @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ pci_mknod_uio_dev(const char *sysfs_uio_path, > >> unsigned uio_num) > >> snprintf(filename, sizeof(filename), "/dev/uio%u", uio_num); > >> dev = makedev(major, minor); > >> ret = mknod(filename, S_IFCHR | S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, dev); > >> - if (f == NULL) { > >> + if (ret != 0) { > > I think checkpatch will suggest to just use if (ret) > > Your are right, default checkpatch.pl complains about this usage (with > --strict > option), but: > > - According DPDK coding style this usage is preferred (although I personally > prefer kernel one..) > > http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/coding_style.html#null-pointers > > " > if (p == NULL) /* Good, compare pointer to NULL */ > > if (!p) /* Bad, using ! on pointer */ > " > > - This warning disabled in dpdk scripts/checkpatches.sh by "--ignore > COMPARISON_TO_NULL", so it shouldn't complain. > >
