On 11/21/2016 8:59 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-11-21 11:46, Andrew Rybchenko: >> On 11/21/2016 11:19 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>> Before submitting 56 patches I'd like to double-check that checkpatch.pl >>>> errors (for example, because of assignments in the 'if' condition, >>>> parenthesis around return value) is not a show-stopper for base driver >>>> import. >>> You can run checkpatches.sh or send the patches to checkpatch at dpdk.org. >>> The script check-git-log.sh can also guide you for the expected formatting. >> >> Yes, I did it and it helped me to find and fix some coding standard >> violations. >> >> The problem with libefx (base driver) is that it is existing code which >> follows FreeBSD and illumos coding conventions which contradict to >> checkpatches.sh sometimes (e.g. require parenthesis around return >> value). Other example of error produced by checkpatches.sh is assign in >> if. It is widely used in the code to assign return code value and >> compare it vs 0 in one line. It is not a coding standard conflict, but >> it is very wide-spread in the code (so changing it will produce too many >> changes not strictly required/useful). >> >> So, may I repeat my question if it is a show-stopper for base driver or >> acceptable. > > I would vote to accept these minor style warnings for the base driver. > Ferruh, any comment? >
For _base driver_, I am also OK for having checkpatch warnings.