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. Thanks Aditya
