On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Another problem is that the patch emails are not properly threaded to the > 0/6 patch and thus appear out of order and mixed up: > > 66216 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet ( 36) [PATCH 0/6] percpu: Implement > Preemption checks for __this_cpu operations V4 > 66217 N C Oct 11 David Miller ( 13) О©╫О©╫> > 66218 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet ( 43) О©╫О©╫>[PATCH 1/6] net: > ip4_datagram_connect: Use correct form of statistics update > 66219 N C Oct 11 Eric Dumazet ( 17) О©╫ О©╫О©╫> > 66220 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet ( 121) О©╫О©╫>[PATCH 2/6] percpu: Add > raw_cpu_ops > 66221 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet ( 189) О©╫О©╫>[PATCH 6/6] percpu: Add > preemption checks to __this_cpu ops > 66222 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet ( 64) О©╫О©╫>[PATCH 5/6] net: > __this_cpu_inc in route.c > 66223 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet ( 103) О©╫О©╫>[PATCH 3/6] mm: Use raw_cpu > ops for determining current NUMA node > 66224 N C Oct 11 Christoph Lamet ( 43) О©╫О©╫>[PATCH 4/6] Use raw_cpu_write > for initialization of per cpu refcount. > > Note how the order is 1,2,6,5,3,4 with no threading instead of 1,2,3,4,5,6 > with proper threading.
Threading is done by quilt and it has been doing that for a pretty long time. > That won't cause email servers to reject the mails, it just makes the > patches a bit harder to review. I do not have any control over how my ISP sorts these emails. You repeatedly asked me to use quilt 0.60 because I guess you believed that it could do some magic. I upgraded specially for you. I really do not know what else to do to appease you. I could chance ISPs hoping that another will deliver them in sequence but that is not easy to do. Maybe Amazon in some way borks the headers. > Most kernel developers tend to use 'git send-email' to send patches to > lkml, and that method is working pretty reliably. People are not allowed to use quilt for patches submitted to you? I just checked and git send-mail does the threading in the same way as quilt. There would be no change.
