>-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2023 9:04 PM >To: Ankur Dwivedi <[email protected]> >Cc: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran ><[email protected]>; [email protected] >Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] devtools: add tracepoint check in checkpatch > >External Email > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >On Thu, 18 May 2023 13:45:29 +0000 >Ankur Dwivedi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Ankur Dwivedi <[email protected]> >> >Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 5:35 PM >> >To: [email protected] >> >Cc: [email protected]; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran >> ><[email protected]>; Ankur Dwivedi <[email protected]> >> >Subject: [PATCH v5 1/1] devtools: add tracepoint check in checkpatch >> > >> >This patch adds a validation in checkpatch tool, to check if a >> >tracepoint is present in any new function added in cryptodev, ethdev, >> >eventdev and mempool library. >> > >> >In this patch, the build_map_changes function is copied from >> >check-symbol- change.sh to check-tracepoint.sh. The >> >check-tracepoint.sh script uses build_map_changes function to create a >map of functions. >> >In the map, the newly added functions, added in the experimental >> >section are identified and their definition are checked for the >> >presence of tracepoint. The checkpatch return error if the tracepoint is not >present. >> > >> >For functions for which trace is not needed, they can be added to >> >devtools/trace-skiplist.txt file. The above tracepoint check will be >> >skipped for them. >> > >> >Signed-off-by: Ankur Dwivedi <[email protected]> > >Given the amount of string processing, it would be more readable in python. >That is not a show stopper, just a suggestion.
Hi Thomas, Please let me know if the shell script in this patch is fine or would a python implementation would be more preferable. Regards, Ankur
