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:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@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>
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>
 <CAKXUXMzdjV8aPL=Paf2QJs1iWB5swxYXFJozyPi_JxJVXRArxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Aditya <yashsri421@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cfa48542-4654-fe62-e7fa-c7d99c6ab4f5@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:51:18 +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: <CAKXUXMzdjV8aPL=Paf2QJs1iWB5swxYXFJozyPi_JxJVXRArxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 22/10/20 12:42 am, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> 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
> 

Hi Sir
I have implemented my solution. Should I send the patch in reply to
this mail or as a different mail? Also should I label it as v2? I have
also addressed the warnings out of list command output in it. for eg.

WARNING:REPEATED_WORD: Possible repeated word: 'root'
#18:
  drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root    0 Apr 17 10:53 .

WARNING:REPEATED_WORD: Possible repeated word: 'nobody'
#28:
drwxr-xr-x 5 nobody nobody    0 Jan 25 18:08 .

Sincerely
Aditya