18/04/2018 10:56, Bruce Richardson: > 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.
+1 to call more scripts in checkpatches.sh. We need to find the right language to do code checks. Coccinelle looks to be a good candidate for some checks. > 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? I am not volunteer to start the work but I would be glad to contribute later. Any motivated volunteer?
