Re: [PATCH] ARC:mm:Fix syntax errors in comments

[Conor.Dooley]

On 22/06/2022 14:46, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> 
>> On 6/22/22 16:38, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>>>> So code that is fine will have typos forever?  Fixing typos in comments
>>>>> doesn't break git blame for the following code.  And typos in comments
>>>>> give a bad impression about the state of the code in general.
>>>>
>>>> Of course not! Documentation is as important as the code, if not even more.
>>>> However, fixing typos to increase your commit counts to a reputable project
>>>> is not fine either. For instance, many of these proposed fixes are targeting
>>>> one single typo at a time. Couldn't they just be sent altogether!?!
>>>
>>> I have the impression that the person is just trying to figure out the
>>> patch submission process.  For example, the subject lines are not
>>> formatter in the standard way (I sent the person a private email about
>>> that).  Perhaps just let him know about how you would rather have received
>>> the patches.
>>
>> In recent times I had seen many typofix patches sent to LKML. You can see most
>> of them by querying `s:"fix typo"` on lore.kernel.org. Some of these patches
>> have been merged, though.
>>
>> What I say as starter thread is "ideal" scenario as described in
>> Documentation/process/2.Process.rst; that is we prefer to see these minor
>> fixes as part of real patches work (say refactoring), rather than just being
>> trivial patches.
>>
>> But what most reviewers here missed is how these typos are found? I guess
>> these can be from codespell or some other tools, or even manual review,
>> then send the fixes en mass.
>>
>> Take a look at "fix typo in a comment" aka "delete redundant word" patches
>> at [1], [2], [3]. and [4].
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220618132659.17100-1-wangxiang@xxxxxxxxxx/
>> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220618130349.11507-1-wangxiang@xxxxxxxxxx/
>> [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220616163830.11366-1-wangxiang@xxxxxxxxxx/
>> [4]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220606123419.29109-1-wangxiang@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> IMHO, these patches should have been in a single, consolidated patch, since
>> these strip duplicate (hence redundant) word (single logical change).
> 
> They go to different maintainers, so perhaps each one would prefer to get
> their own patches?  There was a trivial tree, but it is apparently not
> very active.
> 
> It would indeed be good to indicate how the problems were found.  That
> could suggest whether the problem has been addressed comprehensively, or
> whether just some random issues have been detected.

It would be interesting to see what tool it is, because there appear to be
a bunch of false positives (although maybe that is on the user to read and
understand the tool's output)

Thanks,
Conor.