On Thu, 2019-02-14 at 16:03 +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> 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'?
Yes.
It was for a minimization of churn.
commit 66b47b4a9dad00e45c049d79966de9a3a1f4d337
Author: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
Date: Mon Oct 13 15:51:57 2014 -0700
checkpatch: look for common misspellings
Check for misspellings, based on Debian's lintian list. Several false
positives were removed, and several additional words added that were
common in the kernel:
backword backwords
invalide valide
recieves
singed unsinged
While going back and fixing existing spelling mistakes isn't a high
priority, it'd be nice to try to catch them before they hit the tree.
