pá 6. 2. 2026 v 15:02 odesílatel Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> napsal:
> 04/02/2026 15:53, Stephen Hemminger: > > On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 09:34:26 +0100 > > Lukáš Šišmiš <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The kernel version of checkpatch complains here. The DPDK shell > script > > > > seems to be set to ignore this but. > > > > > > > > WARNING: break is not useful after a return > > > > #15008: FILE: lib/flow_parser/rte_flow_parser.c:14763: > > > > + return cmd_flow_parsed(out); > > > > + break; > > > > > > > > Should I create a new patch set or just let it be at this moment? > > > Lukas > > > > > > I am ok with it as is. > > Better to update. > > There are other warnings: > > WARNING:STRNCPY: Prefer strscpy, strscpy_pad, or __nonstring over strncpy > - see: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/90 > #13052 <https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/90#13052>: FILE: > lib/flow_parser/rte_flow_parser.c:12825: > + strncpy(buf, str, len); > > and a lot of WARNING:LONG_LINE > > I can have a look after the decision. > > And on a more general note, I would have expected to ask the opinion > of rte_flow maintainers, but they are not Cc'ed in these patches. > I communicated primarily with Stephen, and will CC Ori too. Anyone else? > I'm a bit skeptical about adding this outside of ethdev library > which defines the flow API. > CCing Ori to make a decision. I don't mind putting it directly into ethdev as well, I just thought the parser could be its own separate lib as it is just consuming strings and producing rte_flow structures. I can see the heavy ties to the flow library, though. Thomas, Stephen, what are your opinions?
