On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:25 PM Aditya <[email protected]> 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
