[dpdk-dev] tools brainstorming

[Butler, Siobhan A]

> -----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 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 10:43:53AM +0000, 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 of the project.
> > > Any thoughts/suggestions or feedback welcome.
> > > Thanks
> > > Siobhan :)
> > > <siobhan.a.butler at intel.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Coding Style
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Description
> > > -----------
> > >
> > > This document specifies the preferred style for source files in the
> > > DPDK
> > source tree.
> > > It is based on the Linux Kernel coding guidelines and the FreeBSD
> > > 7.2 Kernel Developer's Manual (see man style(9)), but was heavily
> > > modified for
> > the needs of the DPDK. Many of the style rules are implicit in the examples.
> > > Be careful to check the examples before assuming that style is
> > > silent on an
> > issue.
> > >
> > > General Guidelines
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > The rules and guidelines given in this document cannot cover every
> > situation, so the following general guidelines should be used as a fallback:
> > > The code style should be consistent within each individual file, and
> > > within each file in a given directory or module - in the case of
> > > creating new
> > files The primary reason for coding standards is to increase code
> > readability and comprehensibility, therefore always use whatever
> > option will make the code easiest to read.
> > >
> > > The following more specific recommendations apply to all sections,
> > > both for
> > C and assembly code:
> > > Line length is recommended to be not more than 80 characters,
> > > including comments. [Tab stop size should be assumed to be at least
> > > 4-
> > characters wide] Indentation should be to no more than 3 levels deep.
> > > NOTE The above are recommendations, and not hard limits. However, it
> > > is
> > expected that the recommendations should be followed in all but the
> > rarest situations.
> > > C Comment Style
> > >
> > > Usual Comments
> > > --------------
> > >
> > > These comments should be used in normal cases. To document a public
> > API, a doxygen-like format must be used: refer to Doxygen
> Documentation.
> > >  /*
> > >   * VERY important single-line comments look like this.
> > >   */
> > >
> > >  /* Most single-line comments look like this. */
> > >
> > >  /*
> > >   * Multi-line comments look like this.  Make them real sentences. Fill
> > >   * them so they look like real paragraphs.
> > >   */
> > >
> > > License Header
> > > --------------
> > >
> > > Each file should begin with a special comment tag which will contain
> > > the
> > appropriate copyright and license for the file (Generally BSD License).
> > > After any copyright header, a blank line should be left before any
> > > other
> > contents, e.g. include statements in a C file.
> > >
Apologies, my mistake the tag format is now out of date - and should be removed from the style guide.
Siobhan

> >
> > This can become very confusing.  There already is a LICENSE.GPL and
> > LICENSE.LGPL file at the top of the project, allowing others to insert
> > their own licenses within their files can make it difficult for end
> > user to determine if it is legally safe to use a given project.
> >
> > I'd suggest instead that contributions be disallowed from including
> > license files in their code, relying instead on only a single license
> > at the top of the project (which should likely be BSD or LGPL, since we're
> shipping a library).
> >
> > IANAL, but it seems to me to be dangerous to do anything else.  For
> > example, all the code that is dual licensed in the library (like
> > rte_pci_dev_ids.h).  It allows for a BSD or GPL license.  If someone
> > builds dpdk as a DSO and distributes it under the former, every
> > application that links against that re-distribution may arguably
> > itself become GPL licensed.  While I'm personally fine with that, I
> > can see it as being a big deal to some end users.  Unifying the
> > license makes the re-distribution license issue more clear for everyone.
> >
> > Neil
> 
> 
> Input appreciated Neil thank you, would it be best to include this in one of
> the community conference calls?
> IANAL either ( yet at least :) ) - we can certainly consult with someone who
> has the expertise.
> If others are interested in discussing this we can get added to the agenda for
> an upcoming call.
> 
> Is more detailed explanation/notice on the licensing structure required?
> Thanks,
> Siobhan
>