> On Apr 18, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > 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.
I too believe we need to support our own checkpatch to better detect and fix DPDK specific issues. > > +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? Regards, Keith
