Re: [v2] Bluetooth: fix the erroneous flush_work() order

Hi Greg,

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:02 AM Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 06:36:39AM -0700, bluez.test.bot@gmail.com wrote:

quoted

This is automated email and please do not reply to this email!

Dear submitter,

Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list.
This is a CI test results with your patch series:
PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=488173

---Test result---

Test Summary:
CheckPatch                    FAIL      0.77 seconds
GitLint                       PASS      0.12 seconds
BuildKernel                   PASS      529.82 seconds
TestRunner: Setup             PASS      311.54 seconds
TestRunner: l2cap-tester      PASS      2.46 seconds
TestRunner: bnep-tester       PASS      1.76 seconds
TestRunner: mgmt-tester       PASS      26.34 seconds
TestRunner: rfcomm-tester     PASS      1.97 seconds
TestRunner: sco-tester        PASS      1.94 seconds
TestRunner: smp-tester        PASS      2.03 seconds
TestRunner: userchan-tester   PASS      1.92 seconds

Details
##############################
Test: CheckPatch - FAIL - 0.77 seconds
Run checkpatch.pl script with rule in .checkpatch.conf
Bluetooth: fix the erroneous flush_work() order
WARNING: Invalid email format for stable: 'stable [off-list ref]', prefer 'stable@vger.kernel.org'
#26:
Cc: stable <redacted>

WARNING: From:/Signed-off-by: email name mismatch: 'From: linma [off-list ref]' != 'Signed-off-by: Lin Ma [off-list ref]'

total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 checks, 14 lines checked

NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
      mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.

"[PATCH] Bluetooth: fix the erroneous flush_work() order" has style problems, please review.

NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
      them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.

Do these matter enough for me to do a v3?

Nah, we treat checkpatch as just informational I didn't know it
actually checked the git patch description.

The first one is crazy, the second one, well, I can understand...

I wonder why checkpatch is even doing something like that, anyway I
believe the CI just runs checkpatch from mainline.

thanks,

greg k-h

-- 
Luiz Augusto von Dentz