Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <d44e35ec1d923fd09ea6530ca5d1988cc8e59347.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: fix false positive for REPEATED_WORD warning
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Aditya <yashsri421@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        dwaipayanray1@gmail.com
Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:05:22 -0700
In-Reply-To: <c4f8aae0-d805-8d09-1a87-ba64bc01c29a@gmail.com>
References: <20201021150120.29920-1-yashsri421@gmail.com>
         <f073750511750336de5f82600600ba6cb3ddbec0.camel@perches.com>
         <26647abf8cf14595a0dd22f10ec1c32e3dc2a8c0.camel@perches.com>
         <40ca3f0f9a960799ad0e534b77d778c90119e468.camel@perches.com>
         <c4f8aae0-d805-8d09-1a87-ba64bc01c29a@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.4-0ubuntu1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 23:25 +0530, Aditya wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback. I ran a manual check using this approach
> over v5.6..v5.8.
> The negatives occurring with this approach are for the word 'be'
> (Frequency 5) and 'add'(Frequency 1). For eg.
> 
> WARNING:REPEATED_WORD: Possible repeated word: 'be'
> #278: FILE: drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_flow.c:388:
> + * @seg: index of packet segment whose raw fields are to be be extracted
> 
> WARNING:REPEATED_WORD: Possible repeated word: 'add'
> #21:
> Let's also add add a note about using only the l3 access without l4
> 
> Apart from these, it works as expected. It also takes into account the
> cases for multiple occurrences of hex, as you mentioned. For eg.
> 
> WARNING:REPEATED_WORD: Possible repeated word: 'ffff'
> #15:
[]
> I'll try to combine both methods and come up with a better approach.

Enjoy, but please consider:

If for over 30K patches, there are just a few false positives and
a few false negatives, it likely doesn't need much improvement...

checkpatch works on patch contexts.

It's not intended to be perfect.

It's just a little tool that can help avoid some common defects.