Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of cern.ch designates
 188.184.36.48 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=188.184.36.48; helo=cernmxgwlb4.cern.ch;
From:   Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@cern.ch>
To:     Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Reply-To: <federico.vaga@cern.ch>
Subject: report: scripts: checkpatch: Spell Checker Does Not Run with '-f'
Date:   Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:48:24 +0100
Message-ID: <3030138.e1gdHPWlgN@pcbe13614>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2019 12:48:26.1826
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a803276f-1c3d-488c-0fd7-08d6927ab67d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: c80d3499-4a40-4a8c-986e-abce017d6b19
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=c80d3499-4a40-4a8c-986e-abce017d6b19;Ip=[188.184.36.48];Helo=[cernmxgwlb4.cern.ch]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6PR0601MB2149
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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 <federico.vaga@cern.ch>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:29:39 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] script: checkpatch: buggy(?) output with -f option

Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@cern.ch>
---
 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.

-------------------------