[Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] checkpatch: Adjust spelling check false positive
mrinalmni at gmail.com
Fri Jul 10 11:26:50 UTC 2020
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:33 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn at gmail.com>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:31 AM Mrinal Pandey <mrinalmni at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 10:24 PM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn at gmail.com>
> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 10:22 AM Mrinal Pandey <mrinalmni at gmail.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 1:20 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn at gmail.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 10:08 AM Mrinal Pandey <mrinalmni at gmail.com>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > checkpatch.pl issues warnings on the commits
> >> >> > made to scripts/spelling.txt for new entries
> >> >> > of typos and their fixes. This commit adjusts
> >> >> > checkpatch not to complain about the same.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Mrinal Pandey <mrinalmni at gmail.com>
> >> >> > ---
> >> >>
> >> >> How often does that issue appear? Can you use your checkpatch
> >> >> evaluation to show that it is relevant?
> >> >
> >> How many commits to spelling.txt happened within the last year?
> > Sir,
> > I could find only commit to the file in the range 5.7 to 5.8.rc-1.
> >> The patch might be accepted, but the reason is not that convincing.
> > What do you suggest? Should I send it or not?
> Let us keep that in the backlog for now, but not send it. If it is
> only one single case among hundreds false positives, it is maybe not
> the best to start with.
> We might get to that one case here eventually, but let us start with
> the more important and critical cases first.
> >> Maybe you can find another class of false positives that happen more
> >> often?
> > Yes, I have a few other suggestions that I found occurring often and I'm
> still evaluating to find more:
> > 1. In `.h` files, when we write a function prototype, the name of the
> function parameters are
> > not required, only the data type is enough, checkpatch says to define
> the name of the parameters too.
> > Issues a warning like - function definition argument '<arg>' should also
> have an identifier name
> Okay, we need to discuss if that is a convention that developers care
> about or not.
> > 2. A very common warning is - Macros with complex values should be
> enclosed in parentheses
> > which is correct sometimes but a false positive many times, for macros
> ending with `)` or
> > macros like `#define var value` we probably don't need another pair of
> Agree, this might be worth refining in checkpatch as you described.
> > 3. checkpatch complains about breaking a quoted string across lines but
> this is many a time
> > necessary for readability and in most of the patches I saw the strings
> Tricky to really know what the best solution is here. It is a tradeoff
> in both directions.
> Let us put that aside for now.
> > 4. There are many patches where checkpatch issues false positives
> regarding spaces before
> > and after lines.
> Why are they false positives?
The warning by checkpatch says - please, no spaces at the start of a line
but there are indeed no spaces before the line where this warning is issued.
There are multiple commits having this issue, two of them are
`acaab7335bd6` and `372b38ea5911`.
> > 5. The warning - EXPORT_SYMBOL(foo); should immediately follow its
> > is falsely positive in many cases where the statement is correct but the
> script fails to identify it.
> If the script does not detect that, it sounds like a bug.
> This can be improved for checkpatch.pl.
> > 6. While running checkpatch on a patch the following error was thrown to
> the console -
> > Use of uninitialized value $1 in regexp compilation at ./scripts/
> checkpatch.pl line 2653.
> > This could be fixed.
> That looks pretty sure like a bug.
> > Please let me know your views on these ideas.
> I suggest we look into issue 5 and 6.
> For Issue 5: Can you provide me (and the CC: the list) the list of
> false positives (the commit hashes) you found for issue 5 on
Here are the commit hashes for which the warning is issued:
Can you also provide a short rationale/explanation for
> each case that you considered a false positive?
In each case the `EXPORT_SYMBOL()` is correctly written and the
variable/function to be exported
is also inside the parentheses, still, we get the warning. Please let me
know if I am wrong here.
> For Issue 6: Can you provide me the commit hash that caused this
> checkpatch.pl error? Then, we can reproduce and confirm that issue
> probably simply with `git format-patch -1 $SHA |
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl` and observe the bug and crash ourselves?
These are the commit hashes that crashed the checkpatch:
> (I added linux-kernel-mentees at lists.linuxfoundation.org back to the
> recipient list.)
> Also, on sending emails: you started the thread on
> linux-kernel-mentees at lists.linuxfoundation.org. All further replies
> shall always include that list in To or CC, so that the email thread
> is complete on the list.
> At some point in this mail thread, you only replied to me but did not
> have the list in the recipient list (in To or CC). That was wrong;
> Please follow the rule stated above. I hope this point was already
> taught on the LF Kernel Development Introduction course. Maybe you can
> check the material once again and see if and where that was pointed
> out in the course material?
Sir, I apologize for not including the list in my previous replies.
Unfortunately, it slipped out of my mind.
I assure you it would not happen again. Also, Linux Kernel Mentorship wiki
says to CC the overall
program mentor Shuah Khan Ma'am on each contribution. Should I do it only
on the final patches or on
every mail I send?
> Thanks, waiting for response,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Linux-kernel-mentees