linux-kernel - Re: report: scripts: checkpatch: Spell Checker Does Not Run with '-f'

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4a6844c41d187d113e0c54dd156ba91c2635c361.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Feb 2019 06:44:55 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     federico.vaga@...n.ch, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: report: scripts: checkpatch: Spell Checker Does Not Run with
 '-f'

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

> 
> From: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...n.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.vaga@...n.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);