On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 19:27 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 08:23:56AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 18:20 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:18:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:21:11PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > Was there a section in the patch submission documentation to point out > > > > > when people send patches with all the possible twists for an acronym? > > > > > > > > I don't think so. > > > > > > > > > This is giving me constantly gray hairs with TPM patches. > > > > > > > > Well, I'm slowly getting tired of repeating the same crap over and over > > > > again about how important it is to document one's changes and to write > > > > good commit messages. The most repeated answers I'm simply putting into > > > > canned reply templates because, well, saying it once or twice is not > > > > enough anymore. :-\ > > > > > > > > And yeah, I see your pain. Same here, actually. > > > > > > > > In the acronym case, I'd probably add a regex to my patch massaging > > > > script and convert those typos automatically and be done with it. > > > > > > Wonder if checkpatch.pl could be extended to know acronyms e.g. have a > > > db of known acronyms. > > > > ? examples please. > > > > checkpatch has a db for misspellings, I supposed another for > > acronyms could be added, but how would false positives be avoided? > > TPM should be always TPM, e.g. not tpm. EFI should be always, e.g. > not efi. I think it's not possible to distinguish between proper and improper uses. For instance: $ git grep -w tpm | wc -l 328 $ git grep -w TPM | wc -l 566 $ git grep -w efi | wc -l 851 $ git grep -w EFI | wc -l 915
