>On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 06:03:58 +0000 >Ankur Dwivedi <adwiv...@marvell.com> wrote: > >> >> Please let me know if this patch series can be merged in DPDK or if >> >> there are >> >any comments. >> > >> >Not sure why the patch got ignored. >> >Perhaps if check-tracepoint was run first against existing code; add >> >to check- patch later. >> >> check-tracepoint reads a patch and checks if a newly added function in a >library has the trace in it or not. >> For existing code trace can be added manually. Trace was added for existing >functions in 23.03 release. >> > >> >And the skip list is empty, is that right? >> Yes. >> If trace is not required for a new library function, the function name can be >added in skiplist. >> The checkpatch will ignore trace check for that function. >> > is all of existing cryptodev ethdev ... ok now? >> >> No, it's not completely ok. Few functions does not have trace added. >Majority have trace added. > > >I wonder if a coccinelle script might be better for this.
Not sure if newly added functions can be detected in coccinelle script. In this patch the already existing build_map_changes shell function was detecting this. >Rather than adding more checks to already annoying checkpatch.
