Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: fix false positives in REPEATED_WORD warning

[Aditya]

On 23/10/20 1:03 am, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-10-23 at 00:44 +0530, Aditya wrote:
>> On 22/10/20 9:40 pm, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 20:20 +0530, Aditya Srivastava wrote:
>>>> Presence of hexadecimal address or symbol results in false warning
>>>> message by checkpatch.pl.
>>> []
>>>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>>> []
>>>> @@ -3051,7 +3051,10 @@ sub process {
>>>>  		}
>>>>  
>>>>  # check for repeated words separated by a single space
>>>> -		if ($rawline =~ /^\+/ || $in_commit_log) {
>>>> +# avoid false positive from list command eg, '-rw-r--r-- 1 root root'
>>>> +		if (($rawline =~ /^\+/ || $in_commit_log) &&
>>>> +		$rawline !~ /[bcCdDlMnpPs\?-][rwxsStT-]{9}/) {
>>>
>>> Alignment and use \b before and after the regex please.
>>
>> If we use \b either before or after or both it does not match patterns
>> such as:
>> +   -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 112K Mar 20 12:16'
> selinux-policy-3.14.4-48.fc31.noarch.rpm
> 
> OK, thanks, it's good you checked.
> 
>>> []
> 
>>> What does all this code actually avoid?
>>
>> Sir, there are multiple variations of hex for which this warning is
>> occurring, for eg:
>> 1) 00 c0 06 16 00 00 ff ff 00 93 1c 18 00 00 ff ff  ................
>> 2) ffffffff ffffffff 00000000 c070058c
>> 3)     f5a:       48 c7 44 24 78 ff ff    movq
>> $0xffffffffffffffff,0x78(%rsp)
>> 4) +    fe fe
>> 5) +    fe fe   - ? end marker ?
>> 6) Code: ff ff 48 (...)
> 
> So why not just match first with /^[0-9a-f]+$/i ?
> 
> Doesn't that match all the cases listed above?
> 
> 

Then, we'll not be able to account for cases such as:

1) +     * sets this to -1, the slack value will be calculated to be be
halfway [For 'be' 'be']
2) + * @seg: index of packet segment whose raw fields are to be be
extracted [For 'be' 'be']
3) Let's also add add a note about using only the l3 access without l4
[For 'add' 'add']

where it will not detect them.

Aditya