From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A93C439DBE4; Sat, 9 May 2026 19:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778355613; cv=none; b=eGMUel8CC7kPxbtcNk4d+dbo+A0HYA6OJATqWCh3pa4qhZOnE9qaS305JfaPZuaebI12IcDyaUGGlCCm4D3xhZ1+hcm0TFbEM2oWUqf6sxqu5kUFT3Cjs9U9PtLcCpocS0Sp8WVUVzJlnAfWRcWwsFmASkAxIyO8vW1UM6peP6Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778355613; c=relaxed/simple; bh=C2S0N5RnhH/2vct1Y/2IEjCnbP2zJTdvkWAdLDK1SP4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dgbFDDJ+Wz14rJS60MNOkf1I8b1e+aNxQWcXguG54lez50+HfbjmVuYNpOR7OoUmNgIVQYSBSdF/i2mTnGZ3hbw0knxWI+jNaR+wVjIH2edtvlqzn7QOb3onyVtjV5eUQGRehrj39sc3LG5eLMBP17Zco47tumJ+U8D4w2H2Hiw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b=FvLj6KOM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="FvLj6KOM" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Disposition:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject: Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:References; bh=apx2itl6ido/GDl3BMcfRXwcHiMC7anhmX6nWBT36b4=; b=FvLj6KOMbWMxDi06MfXhf1T4Db gOGH3pxNNBEqVPUNxs+pZzjJdIqkGaamay5kH9Bu3yRxyIHMTOW9/T1sHDUn8uZURXPvaH9WElPm8 rmxQam/srjIgPv1mISpW8wJ7NA2Ld/bmhZERgs2DwA8rT7TmcJGBuOwyYBTckIrB3pLw=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wLnWa-00287z-6L; Sat, 09 May 2026 21:39:44 +0200 Date: Sat, 9 May 2026 21:39:44 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Randy Dunlap Cc: Shuah Khan , Adrien Reynard , Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Andrey Konovalov , Dmitry Vyukov , Vincenzo Frascino , Jonathan Corbet , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Richard Weinberger , Anton Ivanov , Johannes Berg , "open list:KASAN" , "open list:DOCUMENTATION PROCESS" , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , open list , "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" , "open list:USER-MODE LINUX (UML)" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] docs: fix repeated prepositions across documentation Message-ID: <3b4357a7-f70d-41b0-a75d-c30f9fb7dd98@lunn.ch> References: <20260508163804.16267-1-reynard.adrien.08@gmail.com> <2b771350-0562-4cb1-b9b3-cc3ce59b1a63@linuxfoundation.org> <3c6cde1a-9ce0-4d63-ba89-820c596cff3e@lunn.ch> <27c61395-f04f-420c-9a84-7e27773f2027@infradead.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27c61395-f04f-420c-9a84-7e27773f2027@infradead.org> > > Can we get the tool changed to add a warning, something like: > > > > WARNING: This tool uses very simple pattern matching to look for > > repeated words. It does not understand the complexity of English, > > and will often result in false positive reports. Please assume it is > > wrong until proven otherwise. > > There was no commit log and no cover letter AFAIK. > Do we know what tool was used? > > Adrien, how did you discover these repeated words? > > (If it's my script from 2021, I'll gladly update it.) Thinking about it some more, i think the warning might actually need to be different. If this tool has been around since 2021, all the real problems have been solved, leaving only the false positives. So the warning probably needs to be much stronger, saying that it probably only reports false positives, unless the code is new. Maybe we also want to extend the tool to have a list all the known false positives? Andrew