On Thursday, February 14, 2019 3:44:55 PM CET Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 13:48 +0100, Federico Vaga wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Recently I have produce a couple of patches but I get different warnings > > if I run checkpatch on the file (-f) or if I run it of a patch file. In > > particular, the problem I found is with the spell checker which seems to > > run only when the option '-f' is not used. I am wandering if there are > > other similar cases. > > > > I do not know Perl, so I cannot investigate more, but I have a practical > > example. I have this simple patch applied on my tree that introduces a > > spell > > error: > If you want spelling fixes on files you have to use --strict
Thanks Is it a design choice to have different checks enabled with '-f'? > > From: Federico Vaga <federico.v...@cern.ch> > > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:29:39 +0100 > > Subject: [PATCH] script: checkpatch: buggy(?) output with -f option > > > > Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <federico.v...@cern.ch> > > --- > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c > > b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c index b32d67c..f4deb90 100644 > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ocores.c > > @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ static int ocores_poll_wait(struct ocores_i2c *i2c) > > > > /* on going transfer */ > > mask = OCI2C_STAT_TIP; > > /* > > > > - * We wait for the data to be transferred (8bit), > > + * We wait for the data to be transfered (8bit), > > > > * then we start polling on the ACK/NACK bit > > */ > > > > udelay((8 * 1000) / i2c->bus_clock_khz);
