Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: fix false positive for REPEATED_WORD warning

[Lukas Bulwahn]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:25 PM Aditya <yashsri421@xxxxxxxxx> 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