From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 8240D1804C for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 18:30:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0DD4C433C8; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 18:30:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1692124234; bh=t7b2VbdNw/i6NoJ0PKaswwPONEbGDaYAFFU00ewCL0s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=rCj/2Y6gQzuQUEm4p24rQ8YcdhP7meWTQAd/cdATZRP8uqNPHguPTtQ4sXDLgeaR+ ikmwQ7QHnQZSmEyPO6xmuBW3dW1gFsIgC3rXOToZLxYzDjSm2FVz6ZhekuI8wRYu4U TJpO2KAddd0LGGkFsxbv831BvQpjnUEsEpxuBUtiiJQImJ1Td0joNEv9Pi36dcc2ch 6+Nr4msXMaSEzw0GHRJkfEZEAC0tYSFJBohrJnxFfcReiQPKcsc2ss5MNjDnFbdOZ5 456wXDmRXlmODqc86KzNevco7J+Mpe2tm1/hXi6ImyivorOgDnxu6yFZjPAj0S2HtP s/mL5iRIiz5FQ== Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:30:33 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Luiz Augusto von Dentz Cc: davem@davemloft.net, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: pull request: bluetooth-next 2023-08-11 Message-ID: <20230815113033.7cdf64ff@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20230811192256.1988031-1-luiz.dentz@gmail.com> <20230814164546.71dbc695@kernel.org> <20230815111554.7ff6205e@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:18:07 -0700 Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 11:15=E2=80=AFAM Jakub Kicinski = wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 10:59:35 -0700 Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: =20 > > > Ok, since it has been applied what shall we do? =20 > > > > Not much we can do now. Make sure you run: > > > > https://github.com/kuba-moo/nipa/blob/master/tests/patch/verify_signedo= ff/verify_signedoff.sh > > > > on the next PR. =20 >=20 > Will try to incorporate this into our CI checks, btw any reason why > this is not done by the likes of checkpatch? No reason I can think of. The people who usually run this check will not want to switch to checkpatch because of its high false-positive rate. So I'm guessing nobody had the motivation to send a patch.