Re: report: scripts: checkpatch: Spell Checker Does Not Run with '-f'

[Federico Vaga]

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'?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 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
>             recieves
>             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.