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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: fix false positive for REPEATED_WORD warning
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        dwaipayanray1@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>
 <d44e35ec1d923fd09ea6530ca5d1988cc8e59347.camel@perches.com>
From:   Aditya <yashsri421@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0871715a-e605-91c0-ffa5-389a313ec34d@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 23:55:28 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d44e35ec1d923fd09ea6530ca5d1988cc8e59347.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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.

Thanks
Aditya