On Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:19:36 PM CET Joe Perches wrote: > 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.
Thank you for the information. > 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.
