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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <d44e35ec1d923fd09ea6530ca5d1988cc8e59347.camel@perches.com>
 <0871715a-e605-91c0-ffa5-389a313ec34d@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0871715a-e605-91c0-ffa5-389a313ec34d@gmail.com>
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:12:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKXUXMzdjV8aPL=Paf2QJs1iWB5swxYXFJozyPi_JxJVXRArxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: fix false positive for REPEATED_WORD warning
To:     Aditya <yashsri421@gmail.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:25 PM Aditya <yashsri421@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 21/10/20 11:35 pm, Joe Perches wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
> Alright Sir. Then, we can proceed with the method you suggested, as it
> is more or less perfect.
> I'll re-send the patch with modified reduced warning figure.
>

Aditya, you can also choose to implement your solution;
yes, it is more work for you but it also seems to function better in
the long run.

Clearly, Joe would settle for a simpler solution, but his TODO list of
topics to engage in and work on is also much longer...

Lukas