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.
