Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: never relocate kernel below lowest acceptable address

Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: never relocate kernel below lowest acceptable address

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:14:19PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Your spelling of "EFI" is like a random number generator in this
> paragraph: "Efi", "efi" and "EFI". Can you please be more careful when
> writing your commit messages? They're not some random text you hurriedly
> jot down before sending the patch but a most important description of
> why a change is being done.

Was there a section in the patch submission documentation to point out
when people send patches with all the possible twists for an acronym?

This is giving me constantly gray hairs with TPM patches.

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: never relocate kernel below lowest acceptable address

[Borislav Petkov]

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.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: never relocate kernel below lowest acceptable address

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

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.

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: never relocate kernel below lowest acceptable address

[Joe Perches]

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?

Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: never relocate kernel below lowest acceptable address

[Borislav Petkov]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 08:23:56AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> ?  examples please.

From this very thread:

\sEfi\s, \sefi\s, \seFI\s etc should be "EFI"

I'm thinking perhaps start conservatively and catch the most often
misspelled ones in commit messages or comments. "CPU", "SMT", "MCE",
"MCA", "PCI" etc come to mind.

> checkpatch has a db for misspellings, I supposed another for
> acronyms could be added,

Doesn't have to be another one - established acronyms are part of the
dictionary too.

> but how would false positives be avoided?

Perhaps delimited with spaces or non-word chars (\W) and when they're
part of a comment or the commit message...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: never relocate kernel below lowest acceptable address

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 17:48 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 08:23:56AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > ?  examples please.
> 
> From this very thread:
> 
> \sEfi\s, \sefi\s, \seFI\s etc should be "EFI"
> 
> I'm thinking perhaps start conservatively and catch the most often
> misspelled ones in commit messages or comments. "CPU", "SMT", "MCE",
> "MCA", "PCI" etc come to mind.
> 
> > checkpatch has a db for misspellings, I supposed another for
> > acronyms could be added,
> 
> Doesn't have to be another one - established acronyms are part of the
> dictionary too.

Couldn't work.  The dictionary is case insensitive.

Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: never relocate kernel below lowest acceptable address

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

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.

/Jarkko

Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: never relocate kernel below lowest acceptable address

[Joe Perches]

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