Hello,
Recently I have produce a couple of patches but I get different warnings if I
run checkpatch on the file (-f) or if I run it of a patch file. In particular,
the problem I found is with the spell checker which seems to run only when the
option '-f' is not used. I am wandering if there are other similar cases.
I do not know Perl, so I cannot investigate more, but I have a practical
example. I have this simple patch applied on my tree that introduces a spell
error:
From: Federico Vaga <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:29:39 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] script: checkpatch: buggy(?) output with -f option
Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <[email protected]>
---
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c
index b32d67c..f4deb90 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c
@@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ static int ocores_poll_wait(struct ocores_i2c *i2c)
/* on going transfer */
mask = OCI2C_STAT_TIP;
/*
- * We wait for the data to be transferred (8bit),
+ * We wait for the data to be transfered (8bit),
* then we start polling on the ACK/NACK bit
*/
udelay((8 * 1000) / i2c->bus_clock_khz);
--
2.15.0
And here the outputs from checkpatch
--------- ON FILE ----------------
./script/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c
total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 765 lines checked
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c has no obvious style problems and is ready for
submission.
---------- ON PATCH ---------------
./script/checkpatch.pl 0001-script-checkpatch-buggy-output-with-f-option.patch
WARNING: Missing commit description - Add an appropriate one
WARNING: 'transfered' may be misspelled - perhaps 'transferred'?
#20: FILE: drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c:304:
+ * We wait for the data to be transfered (8bit),
total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 8 lines checked
NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.
0001-script-checkpatch-buggy-output-with-f-option.patch has style problems,
please review.
NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
-------------------------
On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 13:48 +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Recently I have produce a couple of patches but I get different warnings if I
> run checkpatch on the file (-f) or if I run it of a patch file. In particular,
> the problem I found is with the spell checker which seems to run only when the
> option '-f' is not used. I am wandering if there are other similar cases.
>
> I do not know Perl, so I cannot investigate more, but I have a practical
> example. I have this simple patch applied on my tree that introduces a spell
> error:
If you want spelling fixes on files you have to use --strict
>
> From: Federico Vaga <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:29:39 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] script: checkpatch: buggy(?) output with -f option
>
> Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c
> index b32d67c..f4deb90 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c
> @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ static int ocores_poll_wait(struct ocores_i2c *i2c)
> /* on going transfer */
> mask = OCI2C_STAT_TIP;
> /*
> - * We wait for the data to be transferred (8bit),
> + * We wait for the data to be transfered (8bit),
> * then we start polling on the ACK/NACK bit
> */
> udelay((8 * 1000) / i2c->bus_clock_khz);
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 3:44:55 PM CET Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 13:48 +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Recently I have produce a couple of patches but I get different warnings
> > if I run checkpatch on the file (-f) or if I run it of a patch file. In
> > particular, the problem I found is with the spell checker which seems to
> > run only when the option '-f' is not used. I am wandering if there are
> > other similar cases.
> >
> > I do not know Perl, so I cannot investigate more, but I have a practical
> > example. I have this simple patch applied on my tree that introduces a
> > spell
> > error:
> If you want spelling fixes on files you have to use --strict
Thanks
Is it a design choice to have different checks enabled with '-f'?
> > From: Federico Vaga <[email protected]>
> > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:29:39 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] script: checkpatch: buggy(?) output with -f option
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c
> > b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c index b32d67c..f4deb90 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c
> > @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ static int ocores_poll_wait(struct ocores_i2c *i2c)
> >
> > /* on going transfer */
> > mask = OCI2C_STAT_TIP;
> > /*
> >
> > - * We wait for the data to be transferred (8bit),
> > + * We wait for the data to be transfered (8bit),
> >
> > * then we start polling on the ACK/NACK bit
> > */
> >
> > udelay((8 * 1000) / i2c->bus_clock_khz);
On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 16:03 +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2019 3:44:55 PM CET Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 13:48 +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Recently I have produce a couple of patches but I get different warnings
> > > if I run checkpatch on the file (-f) or if I run it of a patch file. In
> > > particular, the problem I found is with the spell checker which seems to
> > > run only when the option '-f' is not used. I am wandering if there are
> > > other similar cases.
> > >
> > > I do not know Perl, so I cannot investigate more, but I have a practical
> > > example. I have this simple patch applied on my tree that introduces a
> > > spell
> > > error:
> > If you want spelling fixes on files you have to use --strict
>
> Thanks
>
> Is it a design choice to have different checks enabled with '-f'?
Yes.
It was for a minimization of churn.
commit 66b47b4a9dad00e45c049d79966de9a3a1f4d337
Author: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
Date: Mon Oct 13 15:51:57 2014 -0700
checkpatch: look for common misspellings
Check for misspellings, based on Debian's lintian list. Several false
positives were removed, and several additional words added that were
common in the kernel:
backword backwords
invalide valide
recieves
singed unsinged
While going back and fixing existing spelling mistakes isn't a high
priority, it'd be nice to try to catch them before they hit the tree.
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:19:36 PM CET Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 16:03 +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 14, 2019 3:44:55 PM CET Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 13:48 +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Recently I have produce a couple of patches but I get different
> > > > warnings
> > > > if I run checkpatch on the file (-f) or if I run it of a patch file.
> > > > In
> > > > particular, the problem I found is with the spell checker which seems
> > > > to
> > > > run only when the option '-f' is not used. I am wandering if there are
> > > > other similar cases.
> > > >
> > > > I do not know Perl, so I cannot investigate more, but I have a
> > > > practical
> > > > example. I have this simple patch applied on my tree that introduces a
> > > > spell
> > >
> > > > error:
> > > If you want spelling fixes on files you have to use --strict
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Is it a design choice to have different checks enabled with '-f'?
>
> Yes.
>
> It was for a minimization of churn.
Thank you for the information.
> commit 66b47b4a9dad00e45c049d79966de9a3a1f4d337
> Author: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon Oct 13 15:51:57 2014 -0700
>
> checkpatch: look for common misspellings
>
> Check for misspellings, based on Debian's lintian list. Several false
> positives were removed, and several additional words added that were
> common in the kernel:
>
> backword backwords
> invalide valide
> recieves
> singed unsinged
>
> While going back and fixing existing spelling mistakes isn't a high
> priority, it'd be nice to try to catch them before they hit the tree.