On 04/26/2018 10:57 PM, Arnon Warshavsky wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com > <mailto:ktray...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > I think the first line of the commit msg ^^^ should change as it no > longer prevents but just warns > > Actually the return value did not change, only the warning text did.
So will it fail checkpatch in patchwork? I agree with Aaron and Anatoly that patches with rte_panic/exit should flag some warning message, but the maintainer should have final say. I don't think failing checkpatch is the solution for that. > I would rather keep the word 'prevents' as an intention declaration that > puts the fact that a panic is undesired first, and the technical ability > of a maintainer to allow it second. It's only words, but to me 'prevents' does not indicate that it is undesirable - it indicates it is not allowed. > This is just in terms of how one positions the usage of panic. > > > > > > > Seems to drop the patch name if it finds a match > > > Not sure I understand what you meant here. Can you please elaborate? > Sure, I made a patch with an rte_panic and ran checkpatch on a bunch of patches. It gave me the name of all the patches except the one with the rte_panic. > Thanks > /Arnon >
