Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Sent: 29 October 2018 07:49 > To: Joseph, Anoob <anoob.jos...@cavium.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Bruce Richardson > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Pablo de Lara > <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin > <jerin.jacobkollanukka...@cavium.com>; Athreya, Narayana Prasad > <narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] examples/l2fwd: fix checkpatch reported > issues > > External Email > > 08/10/2018 14:35, Ferruh Yigit: > > On 10/8/2018 12:29 PM, Joseph, Anoob wrote: > > > On 08-10-2018 16:30, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > >> On 10/8/2018 11:41 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote: > > >>> This patchset fixes multiple issues reported by checkpatch in > > >>> l2fwd code base. These issues would be flagged for any new copy of > > >>> the file and hence, fixing at the source. > > >>> > > >>> Anoob Joseph (8): > > >>> examples/l2fwd: remove quoted white space before newline > > >>> examples/l2fwd: need space between two args > > >>> examples/l2fwd: else should follow close brace > > >>> examples/l2fwd: replace bare usage of 'unsigned' > > >>> examples/l2fwd: follow convention for block comments > > >>> examples/l2fwd: limit line to 80 char > > >>> examples/l2fwd: space required between elements > > >>> examples/l2fwd: remove null initialisation > > >> Hi Anoob, > > >> > > >> I am not sure if it is good idea to get syntax only fixes, I would > > >> prefer to get syntax fixes when some other code touches that area. > > > I'm preparing a new copy of l2fwd with support for eventmode(as > > > suggested in, > > > https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-August/109717.html). All > > > these issues were flagged when I did the copy. What would be the > > > better approach in that case? Fix it in just the new application or > > > fix the source? Fixing in just the new app would mean, the two > > > versions will have a diff at the time of copy. > > > > I see, make sense to not create syntax diff copied and original > > versions, I missed the new copy part. So OK for this patch. > > It was said that there will be not so much common code. > So why bothering to reformat the original example?
There will be common code. In fact most of the code could actually be shared. But we are creating a copy and starting from there because Bruce didn't want any changes in the existing app. > Anyway, if such cleanup is worth before duplicating, please insert it in the > same > patchset as the new example. These fixes will be there in the new app. I'll add this in the patchset when I share the new app. Thanks, Anoob