>-----Original Message----- >From: Ankur Dwivedi >Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 12:37 PM >To: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Jerin Jacob <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] devtools: add tracepoint check in >checkpatch > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ankur Dwivedi >>Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 7:37 PM >>To: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> >>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Jerin Jacob ><[email protected]> >>Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] devtools: add tracepoint >>check in checkpatch >> >>>On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 06:03:58 +0000 >>>Ankur Dwivedi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >> Please let me know if this patch series can be merged in DPDK or >>>> >> if there are >>>> >any comments. >>>> > >>>> >Not sure why the patch got ignored. >>>> >Perhaps if check-tracepoint was run first against existing code; >>>> >add to check- patch later. >>>> >>>> check-tracepoint reads a patch and checks if a newly added function >>>> in a >>>library has the trace in it or not. >>>> For existing code trace can be added manually. Trace was added for >>>> existing >>>functions in 23.03 release. >>>> > >>>> >And the skip list is empty, is that right? >>>> Yes. >>>> If trace is not required for a new library function, the function >>>> name can be >>>added in skiplist. >>>> The checkpatch will ignore trace check for that function. >>>> > is all of existing cryptodev ethdev ... ok now? >>>> >>>> No, it's not completely ok. Few functions does not have trace added. >>>Majority have trace added. >>> >>> >>>I wonder if a coccinelle script might be better for this. >> >>Not sure if newly added functions can be detected in coccinelle script. >>In this patch the already existing build_map_changes shell function was >>detecting this. >Let me know if any more comments or changes are required in this patch.
Please let me know if any comments on this patch. >> >>>Rather than adding more checks to already annoying checkpatch.
