On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:19:07AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 18/04/2018 00:11, Scott Branden: > > On 18-04-17 03:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 17/04/2018 23:49, Stephen Hemminger: > > >> IMHO would have been better to use the kernel SPDX style and > > >> keep the check but that appears to be a minority opinion. > > > > > > I think it is better to work on checkpatch itself. > > > When defining our SPDX style, Linux one was not definitive. > > > Do you think we can ask the Linux community to support our SPDX style? > > > > > I think it better to simply follow the Linux community defacto style > > rather than go your own way. > > But our way is better! :) > And it has been decided in the Technical Board. >
As a general issue, I think we could do with having our own checkpatch-like script for performing addition DPDK-specific code-checks *after* Linux checkpatch ones. That is, reuse Linux check patch checks as much as possible, but have other checks too. For example, check for use of strcpy or strncpy (or snprintf with "%s") and suggest replacing with strlcpy. If we did have our own extension script, we could put our own SPDX format check there too. Thoughts, or any volunteers to look into this? /Bruce
