Re: report: scripts: checkpatch: Spell Checker Does Not Run with '-f'
From: Federico Vaga
Date: Thu Feb 14 2019 - 10:22:32 EST
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:19:36 PM CET Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 16:03 +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 14, 2019 3:44:55 PM CET Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 13:48 +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Recently I have produce a couple of patches but I get different
> > > > warnings
> > > > if I run checkpatch on the file (-f) or if I run it of a patch file.
> > > > In
> > > > particular, the problem I found is with the spell checker which seems
> > > > to
> > > > run only when the option '-f' is not used. I am wandering if there are
> > > > other similar cases.
> > > >
> > > > I do not know Perl, so I cannot investigate more, but I have a
> > > > practical
> > > > example. I have this simple patch applied on my tree that introduces a
> > > > spell
> > >
> > > > error:
> > > If you want spelling fixes on files you have to use --strict
> > Thanks
> > Is it a design choice to have different checks enabled with '-f'?
> It was for a minimization of churn.
Thank you for the information.
> commit 66b47b4a9dad00e45c049d79966de9a3a1f4d337
> Author: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon Oct 13 15:51:57 2014 -0700
> checkpatch: look for common misspellings
> Check for misspellings, based on Debian's lintian list. Several false
> positives were removed, and several additional words added that were
> common in the kernel:
> backword backwords
> invalide valide
> singed unsinged
> While going back and fixing existing spelling mistakes isn't a high
> priority, it'd be nice to try to catch them before they hit the tree.