2016-09-09 14:33, Mcnamara, John: > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > 2016-09-08 18:15, Ferruh Yigit: > > > On 9/8/2016 5:44 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > But then again the whole KNI driver fails completely when running > > > > kernel style check. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it generates lots of warnings. > > > I can fix them (excluding ethtool/*), that wouldn't take much time but > > > how syntax only patches welcomed? Another concern is it trashes git > > blame. > > > > You ask a question and give the answer ;) I think it depends just on the > > balance of the pros/cons - to be evaluated. > > Hi, > > I think in general we would prefer to avoid any large scale code > beautification since, as pointed out, it breaks the option to git blame. > > However, in the case of the KNI code the main author in git is "Intel" so git > blame doesn't tell you a lot. Also, Ferruh is the maintainer, has made most > of the recent changes, and is actively maintaining/improving it. So I think > if the syntax fix came from him it would be okay. At least it would allow us > to apply the checkpatch checks.
Yes seems reasonnable
