Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> writes:
> On 15.05.2019 23:32, Aaron Conole wrote:
>> Aaron Conole <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 15.05.2019 19:13, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>>>>> Hi Aaron.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robot complains about lines not touched by this patch.
>>>>> This is strange.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that it's because of file renaming.
>>>
>>> Yes, I think you're correct.
>>>
>>>> What git version you're using? Or maybe some special options?
>>>
>>> I don't think it matters the version (I just tried locally with my git
>>> 2.19.1). I think when the diff is being generated via git for
>>> processing (the robot doesn't patch file directly, it uses checkpatch.py
>>> -1), it includes all of old file as '-' and all of the new file as '+',
>>> so the robot will see it.
>>>
>>> I get a similar checkpatch complaint just doing a git mv on the file and
>>> trying to commit, because I have checkpatch setup as a commit hook.
>>
>> I'll re-work the robot to do the git-am and then run against the
>> original patch file. That will suppress these kinds of issues.
>
> This will probably help.
> However, I don't see any issues while using "checkpatch.py -1".
>
> On my Ubuntu:
>
> $ ./utilities/checkpatch.py -1
> == Checking 6921c382c9fd ("netdev-offload: Rename offload providers.") ==
> Lines checked: 263, no obvious problems found
>
> $ git --version
> git version 2.17.1
>
> And on my FreeBSD VM:
>
> # ./utilities/checkpatch.py -1
> == Checking 6a7b77036f3c ("netdev-offload: Rename offload providers.")
> ==
> Lines checked: 263, no obvious problems found
>
>
> # git --version
> git version 2.20.1
>
>
> Also, this patch is exactly same in all previous versions since v2.
> And there was no complains for them.
I'll take a look at the older versions, too.
AFAIK nothing changed.
>>
>>>>> Best regards, Ilya Maximets.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15.05.2019 19:05, 0-day Robot wrote:
>>>>>> Bleep bloop. Greetings Ilya Maximets, I am a robot and I have tried out
>>>>>> your patch.
>>>>>> Thanks for your contribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> checkpatch:
>>>>>> ERROR: Improper whitespace around control block
>>>>>> #1065 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:173:
>>>>>> HMAP_FOR_EACH_WITH_HASH(data, ufid_node, ufid_hash, &ufid_tc) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ERROR: Improper whitespace around control block
>>>>>> #1135 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:243:
>>>>>> HMAP_FOR_EACH_WITH_HASH(data, ufid_node, ufid_hash, &ufid_tc) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ERROR: Improper whitespace around control block
>>>>>> #1165 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:273:
>>>>>> HMAP_FOR_EACH_WITH_HASH(data, tc_node, tc_hash, &ufid_tc) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ERROR: Improper whitespace around control block
>>>>>> #1209 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:317:
>>>>>> HMAP_FOR_EACH_WITH_HASH(data, node, hash, &prios) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: Line is 80 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>>> #1471 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:579:
>>>>>> match_set_nw_src_masked(match, key->ipv4.ipv4_src,
>>>>>> mask->ipv4.ipv4_src);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: Line is 80 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>>> #1472 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:580:
>>>>>> match_set_nw_dst_masked(match, key->ipv4.ipv4_dst,
>>>>>> mask->ipv4.ipv4_dst);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: Line is 82 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>>> #1545 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:653:
>>>>>> size_t set_offset = nl_msg_start_nested(buf,
>>>>>> OVS_ACTION_ATTR_SET);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: Line is 83 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>>> #1550 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:658:
>>>>>> nl_msg_put_be64(buf, OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_ID,
>>>>>> action->encap.id);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: Line is 81 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>>> #1600 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:708:
>>>>>> nl_msg_put_u32(buf, OVS_ACTION_ATTR_OUTPUT,
>>>>>> odp_to_u32(outport));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: Line is 84 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>>> #1618 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:726:
>>>>>> || (flower->offloaded_state ==
>>>>>> TC_OFFLOADED_STATE_UNDEFINED);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ERROR: Improper whitespace around control block
>>>>>> #1756 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:864:
>>>>>> NL_ATTR_FOR_EACH_UNSAFE(tun_attr, tun_left, tunnel, tunnel_len) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: Line is 85 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>>> #2026 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:1134:
>>>>>> flower.mask.tunnel.id = (tnl->flags & FLOW_TNL_F_KEY) ?
>>>>>> tnl_mask->tun_id : 0;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ERROR: Improper whitespace around control block
>>>>>> #2189 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:1297:
>>>>>> NL_ATTR_FOR_EACH(nla, left, actions, actions_len) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: Line is 81 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>>> #2191 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:1299:
>>>>>> VLOG_DBG_RL(&rl, "Can only support %d actions",
>>>>>> flower.action_count);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: Line is 80 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
>>>>>> #2311 FILE: lib/netdev-offload-tc.c:1419:
>>>>>> VLOG_ERR_RL(&error_rl, "flow get failed (dev %s prio %d handle
>>>>>> %d): %s",
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lines checked: 4898, Warnings: 9, Errors: 6
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please check this out. If you feel there has been an error, please
>>>>>> email [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> 0-day Robot
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dev mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
