Re: [PATCH] scripts/spelling.txt: drop "sepc" from the misspelling list
From: Paul Walmsley
Date: Wed May 22 2019 - 00:52:11 EST
On Tue, 21 May 2019, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2019 11:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 May 2019, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2019-05-18 at 14:00 -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > > > The RISC-V architecture has a register named the "Supervisor Exception
> > > > Program Counter", or "sepc". This abbreviation triggers
> > > > checkpatch.pl's misspelling detector, resulting in noise in the
> > > > checkpatch output. The risk that this noise could cause more useful
> > > > warnings to be missed seems to outweigh the harm of an occasional
> > > > misspelling of "spec". Thus drop the "sepc" entry from the
> > > > misspelling list.
> > >
> > > I would agree if you first fixed the existing sepc/spec
> > > and sepcific/specific typos.
> > >
> > > arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_xics.c: * a pending interrupt, this is a SW error and PAPR sepcifies
> > > arch/unicore32/include/mach/regs-gpio.h: * Sepcial Voltage Detect Reg GPIO_GPIR.
> > > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c: /* Stop any OneConnect device sepcific driver timers */
> > > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/rtl8723b_phycfg.c:* OverView: Read "sepcific bits" from BB register
> > > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/wifi.h:/* Ref: 802.11i sepc D10.0 220.127.116.11.1
> > Your agreement shouldn't be needed for the patch I sent.
> I always find Joe's input to be very useful.
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: scripts-spellingtxt-drop-sepc-from-the-misspelling-list-fix
> fix existing "sepc" instances, per Joe
> Cc: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks Andrew. Sorry that you had to do it.
Reviewed-by: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>
What troubled me about Joe's message is that it seems like poor kernel
developer precedent to block a fix for static analysis false positives to
fix comment spelling errors -- particularly considering that four out of
five of them were unrelated to the actual patch in question. While
comment spelling fixes are worthwhile, I think we should make sure that
the "tail doesn't wag the dog" by prioritizing code fixes first.
Reflecting on it on Sunday evening, if Joe had acked the patch, or added a
Reviewed-by, and asked whether I might send a patch to fix those spelling
errors, it probably would have gotten done.
I will try to do better next time,