From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Reinecke Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/18] lpfc: NVME Initiator: Base modifications Part E Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:45:08 +0100 Message-ID: References: <58990208.nZVFaqC7RkseErlq%jsmart2021@gmail.com> <5881e84b-c932-f812-7f41-a16152d12106@suse.de> <52f4f81e-2353-4da2-7ce9-a7cd7796e1f7@gmail.com> <20170208124754.GA23225@infradead.org> <5b0f8560-a1ca-1b9a-3951-96e251c7b1a9@broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41434 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751480AbdBIHEx (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 02:04:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5b0f8560-a1ca-1b9a-3951-96e251c7b1a9@broadcom.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Smart , Christoph Hellwig , James Smart Cc: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, sagi@grimberg.me, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Thumshirn On 02/08/2017 08:13 PM, James Smart wrote: > > 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. > Unfortunate, but should be okay. We've reviewed the bulk of the patches already, so we'll live with that. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hare@suse.de (Hannes Reinecke) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:45:08 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 07/18] lpfc: NVME Initiator: Base modifications Part E In-Reply-To: <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> <5b0f8560-a1ca-1b9a-3951-96e251c7b1a9@broadcom.com> Message-ID: On 02/08/2017 08:13 PM, James Smart wrote: > > 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. > Unfortunate, but should be okay. We've reviewed the bulk of the patches already, so we'll live with that. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking hare at suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg GF: F. Imend?rffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)