Re: [PATCH] scripts/spelling.txt: drop "sepc" from the misspelling list

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 21:47 -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> 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 7.3.2.25.1
> > > 
> > > Your agreement shouldn't be needed for the patch I sent.
> > 
> > I always find Joe's input to be very useful.
> > 
> > Here:
> > 
> > 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.

I don't believe there is any tail wagging occurring here.

There is no code 'fix' in the original proposed patch.

It is, as described, effectively a subsystem specific
static analysis false positive avoidance patch.  And the
static analysis tool's false positive report is not active
by default.

Any scripts/spelling.txt change like a sepc removal could
be overridden by using checkpatch's --codespell option.

btw:

I don't generally add acked-by or reviewed-by to patches
as I rather agree with Ted's position on these headers.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190521171618.GD2591@xxxxxxx/

> I will try to do better next time,

Thanks.