On 4/14/15, 11:19 AM, "Wiles, Keith" wrote:
>
>
>On 4/14/15, 10:24 AM, "Thomas Monjalon" wrote:
>
>>2015-04-14 15:52, Bruce Richardson:
>>> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:16:12PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> > When a consensus is done, it must be added with a patch with custom
>>> >
2015-04-14 15:52, Bruce Richardson:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:16:12PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > When a consensus is done, it must be added with a patch with custom
> > checkpatch addition.
> >
> My personal feeling is that we should try and keep checkpatch modifications
> to a
>
homas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 5:16 PM
> > > > To: Wiles, Keith; Butler, Siobhan A
> > > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming
> > > >
> &
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:16:03AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Thanks for doing this, it is a great start.
> I admit strong bias towards Linux kernel style.
>
> Could you use one of the standard markup styles so that it could get put in
> documentation?
>
>
> > License Header
> >
On 4/14/15, 10:24 AM, "Thomas Monjalon" wrote:
>2015-04-14 15:52, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:16:12PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> > When a consensus is done, it must be added with a patch with custom
>> > checkpatch addition.
>> >
>> My personal feeling is that we
> >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 5:16 PM
> > > > > To: Wiles, Keith; Butler, Siobhan A
> > > > > Cc: dev
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:16:12PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-04-08 15:53, Wiles, Keith:
> > One of the biggest problems with any style is helping the developer
> > maintain the style. Using some tool does help and I have used astyle
> > before, not bad code formatter. Here is a few that
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:16:55PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>
> On 4/8/15, 5:43 AM, "Butler, Siobhan A" wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >To add to the tools brainstorming - I propose we use the following Coding
> >Standards as the basis of guidelines on coding style going forward.
> >The style
v at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming
> >
> > 2015-04-08 15:53, Wiles, Keith:
> > > One of the biggest problems with any style is helping the developer
> > > maintain the style. Using some tool does help and I have used astyle
> &
gt; Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 5:16 PM
> > > To: Wiles, Keith; Butler, Siobhan A
> > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming
> > >
> > > 2015-04-08 15:53, Wiles, Keith:
> > > > One of the biggest problems with any s
One other policy from Linux that would be worth enforcing is that
the default config value for every new feature should be NO.
The problem is too often developers refuse/forget to test if the
code still builds without their new feature.
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 10:43:53AM +, Butler, Siobhan A wrote:
> Hi all,
> To add to the tools brainstorming - I propose we use the following Coding
> Standards as the basis of guidelines on coding style going forward.
> The style outlined below is in alignment with the current convention
On 4/10/15, 6:41 AM, "Neil Horman" wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 01:49:33AM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/9/15, 7:26 PM, "Neil Horman" wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 09:10:19PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 4/9/15, 2:38 PM, "Jay Rolette" wrote:
>>
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 01:49:33AM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>
> On 4/9/15, 7:26 PM, "Neil Horman" wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 09:10:19PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/9/15, 2:38 PM, "Jay Rolette" wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Neil Horman
>
On 4/9/15, 7:26 PM, "Neil Horman" wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 09:10:19PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/9/15, 2:38 PM, "Jay Rolette" wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Neil Horman
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:31:39AM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
>>
On 4/9/15, 4:23 PM, "Stephen Hemminger" wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 21:10:19 +
>"Wiles, Keith" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/9/15, 2:38 PM, "Jay Rolette" wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Neil Horman
>>wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:31:39AM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
On 4/9/15, 2:38 PM, "Jay Rolette" wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:31:39AM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
>> > stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2015
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 09:10:19PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>
> On 4/9/15, 2:38 PM, "Jay Rolette" wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:31:39AM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 09:29:14PM +, Wiles, Keith wrote:
>
>
> On 4/9/15, 4:23 PM, "Stephen Hemminger" wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 21:10:19 +
> >"Wiles, Keith" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/9/15, 2:38 PM, "Jay Rolette" wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Neil
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 02:38:32PM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:31:39AM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
> > > stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:31:39AM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
> stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:29:54 -0600
> > Jay Rolette wrote:
> >
> > > "C comments" includes //, right? It's been part of the C standard
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:31:39AM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
> > stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:29:54 -0600
> > > Jay Rolette wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 21:10:19 +
"Wiles, Keith" wrote:
>
>
> On 4/9/15, 2:38 PM, "Jay Rolette" wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:31:39AM -0500, Jay Rolette wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
>
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:29:54 -0600
> Jay Rolette wrote:
>
> > "C comments" includes //, right? It's been part of the C standard for a
> long time now...
>
> Yes but.
> I like to use checkpatch and
>NOTE Please avoid, as much as possible, including headers from other headers
>file. Doing so should be properly explained and justified.
Actually, I think a *failure* to #include other header files that this header
file depends on should be what needs explained and justified. It drives me
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 5:16 PM
> To: Wiles, Keith; Butler, Siobhan A
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming
>
> 2015-04-08 15:5
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 7:16 PM
> To: Butler, Siobhan A
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming
>
> Thanks for doing this,
2015-04-08 15:53, Wiles, Keith:
> One of the biggest problems with any style is helping the developer
> maintain the style. Using some tool does help and I have used astyle
> before, not bad code formatter. Here is a few that seem to be reasonable.
>
> http://astyle.sourceforge.net/
>
>
om]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 2:11 PM
>> To: Butler, Siobhan A
>> Cc: Thomas Monjalon; dev at dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 12:16:10PM +, Butler, Siobhan A wrote:
>>>
>>
On 4/8/15, 11:16 AM, "Thomas Monjalon" wrote:
>2015-04-08 15:53, Wiles, Keith:
>> One of the biggest problems with any style is helping the developer
>> maintain the style. Using some tool does help and I have used astyle
>> before, not bad code formatter. Here is a few that seem to be
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:29:54 -0600
Jay Rolette wrote:
> "C comments" includes //, right? It's been part of the C standard for a long
> time now...
Yes but.
I like to use checkpatch and checkpatch enforces kernel style which does not
allow // for
comments.
On 4/8/15, 5:43 AM, "Butler, Siobhan A" wrote:
>Hi all,
>To add to the tools brainstorming - I propose we use the following Coding
>Standards as the basis of guidelines on coding style going forward.
>The style outlined below is in alignment with the current convention used
>for the majority
The userspace code has to be BSD ( no GPL ).
The Linux kernel code must be GPLv2 or BSD/GPL license.
The other kernel code should be BSD/GPL.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Matthew Hall wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:16:03AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > I prefer the file just say
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 2:11 PM
> To: Butler, Siobhan A
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming
>
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 12:16:10P
On 4/8/15, 5:43 AM, "Butler, Siobhan A" wrote:
>Hi all,
>To add to the tools brainstorming - I propose we use the following Coding
>Standards as the basis of guidelines on coding style going forward.
>The style outlined below is in alignment with the current convention used
>for the majority
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Butler, Siobhan A
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:16 PM
> To: Neil Horman
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming
>
>
>
> > -Original M
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 12:44 PM
> To: Butler, Siobhan A
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming
>
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 10:43:53A
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:16:03AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> I prefer the file just say that it is BSD or GPL and refer to license files
> in the package. That way if something has to change it doesn't need a
> massive license sweep
Hi guys,
I hope we're also enforcing some requirement
Thanks for doing this, it is a great start.
I admit strong bias towards Linux kernel style.
Could you use one of the standard markup styles so that it could get put in
documentation?
> License Header
> --
I prefer the file just say that it is BSD or GPL and refer to license files
Hi all,
To add to the tools brainstorming - I propose we use the following Coding
Standards as the basis of guidelines on coding style going forward.
The style outlined below is in alignment with the current convention used for
the majority of the project.
Any thoughts/suggestions or feedback
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 12:16:10PM +, Butler, Siobhan A wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 12:44 PM
> > To: Butler, Siobhan A
> > Cc: Thomas Monjalon; dev at
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 10:43:53AM +, Butler, Siobhan A wrote:
> Hi all,
> To add to the tools brainstorming - I propose we use the following Coding
> Standards as the basis of guidelines on coding style going forward.
> The style outlined below is in alignment with the current convention
On 2015-03-23 17:29, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-03-20 16:18, Simon K?gstr?m:
>>> - make autotests easier and faster to run for smoke testing
>>> - automated basic testpmd check
>>
>> Code coverage for automated tests can be useful as well.
>>
>> In a way I'm speaking in my own interests
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:56:32PM -0500, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22:43AM -0500, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Neil Horman
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The kernel does this
2015-03-20 16:18, Simon K?gstr?m:
> > - make autotests easier and faster to run for smoke testing
> > - automated basic testpmd check
>
> Code coverage for automated tests can be useful as well.
>
> In a way I'm speaking in my own interests here since I've written a tool
> to do just
> On Mar 23, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22:43AM -0500, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
>>>
>>> The kernel does this with some special make targets (make allyesconfig, make
>>> randconfig, etc)
>>
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:19 PM
> To: Butler, Siobhan A
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming
>
> 2015-03-20 15:07, Butler, Siobhan A:
> &g
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 05:18:49PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Don't you think adding a bug tracker would artificially split discussions
> between mailing list threads and bug tracker entries?
It is difficult to track the workflow around bugs without some kind of
bug-friendly workflow tool.
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:51 PM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming
>
> As we are lazy developers, writing guidelines is not enough.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:22:43AM -0500, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> > The kernel does this with some special make targets (make allyesconfig, make
> > randconfig, etc)
>
> Not all the world is Linux.
Your point being?
Are you
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 05:18:49PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-03-20 15:07, Butler, Siobhan A:
> > I propose we also add a bug tracking tool (e.g. Bugzilla or other).
>
> Don't you think adding a bug tracker would artificially split discussions
> between mailing list threads and bug
> On Mar 20, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> The kernel does this with some special make targets (make allyesconfig, make
> randconfig, etc)
Not all the world is Linux.
2015-03-20 11:16, Neil Horman:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:51:11PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > - build check with various options combinations
>
> The kernel does this with some special make targets (make allyesconfig, make
> randconfig, etc). They basically act as build time fuzzers
On 2015/3/20 22:52, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you probably know, a MAINTAINERS file is being filled, which is a great
> help to request patch reviews and discuss design with the knowledgeable people
> of this young DPDK community:
> http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/MAINTAINERS
>
>
On 2015-03-20 15:51, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> As we are lazy developers, writing guidelines is not enough. It must be
> coupled with the integration of some tools. Let's work on these ones:
> - make autotests easier and faster to run for smoke testing
> - automated basic testpmd check
Hi,
As you probably know, a MAINTAINERS file is being filled, which is a great
help to request patch reviews and discuss design with the knowledgeable people
of this young DPDK community:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/MAINTAINERS
The next step is to clearly define what are the
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:51 PM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming
>
> Hi,
>
> As you probably know, a MAINTAINERS file is bei
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:51:11PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you probably know, a MAINTAINERS file is being filled, which is a great
> help to request patch reviews and discuss design with the knowledgeable people
> of this young DPDK community:
>
58 matches
Mail list logo
