From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Smart Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/18] lpfc: NVME Initiator: Base modifications Part E Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:13:27 -0800 Message-ID: <5b0f8560-a1ca-1b9a-3951-96e251c7b1a9@broadcom.com> References: <58990208.nZVFaqC7RkseErlq%jsmart2021@gmail.com> <5881e84b-c932-f812-7f41-a16152d12106@suse.de> <52f4f81e-2353-4da2-7ce9-a7cd7796e1f7@gmail.com> <20170208124754.GA23225@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-yw0-f181.google.com ([209.85.161.181]:33737 "EHLO mail-yw0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751037AbdBHTkf (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:40:35 -0500 Received: by mail-yw0-f181.google.com with SMTP id u68so92531390ywg.0 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:40:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20170208124754.GA23225@infradead.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig , James Smart Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, sagi@grimberg.me, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Johannes Thumshirn On 2/8/2017 4:47 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 06:32:30PM -0800, James Smart wrote: >> I realize I cut these in a silly way. In the v1 patches, I had a big patch >> that I then cut into 6 parts, by file. In the v2 patches, I tried to keep >> the patches as is, and address the comments in the respective patch the >> comment came from. Which resulted in 3/8 with an old reference, but patch >> 8/8 being the one that reverted this reverence. Sorry.. I'll recut and >> repost. > This whole split doesn't make sense - either the patches are logically > split, in which case they can be posted separately, or they belong > together in which case they should be sent together. But the size > of them suggest to me they probably need to be broken down to logically > separate patches. > > And can you please switch to using git-send-email to send the patches > straight from a git branch? There are lot of patch formatting issues > with the lpfc patches, and that should fix most of them instantly. > Ok. I will see if they can be further split. I don't have a lot of hope beyond a couple splits. So, the resulting patches will be large. git-send-email: I'll talk to you offline. -- james From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: james.smart@broadcom.com (James Smart) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:13:27 -0800 Subject: [PATCH v2 07/18] lpfc: NVME Initiator: Base modifications Part E In-Reply-To: <20170208124754.GA23225@infradead.org> References: <58990208.nZVFaqC7RkseErlq%jsmart2021@gmail.com> <5881e84b-c932-f812-7f41-a16152d12106@suse.de> <52f4f81e-2353-4da2-7ce9-a7cd7796e1f7@gmail.com> <20170208124754.GA23225@infradead.org> Message-ID: <5b0f8560-a1ca-1b9a-3951-96e251c7b1a9@broadcom.com> On 2/8/2017 4:47 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017@06:32:30PM -0800, James Smart wrote: >> I realize I cut these in a silly way. In the v1 patches, I had a big patch >> that I then cut into 6 parts, by file. In the v2 patches, I tried to keep >> the patches as is, and address the comments in the respective patch the >> comment came from. Which resulted in 3/8 with an old reference, but patch >> 8/8 being the one that reverted this reverence. Sorry.. I'll recut and >> repost. > This whole split doesn't make sense - either the patches are logically > split, in which case they can be posted separately, or they belong > together in which case they should be sent together. But the size > of them suggest to me they probably need to be broken down to logically > separate patches. > > And can you please switch to using git-send-email to send the patches > straight from a git branch? There are lot of patch formatting issues > with the lpfc patches, and that should fix most of them instantly. > Ok. I will see if they can be further split. I don't have a lot of hope beyond a couple splits. So, the resulting patches will be large. git-send-email: I'll talk to you offline. -- james