Luben Tuikov wrote: > You then took hunk #2 (2 lines) of the patch I sent > you and submitted it as your own, and then I acked > "your" patch. > I _really_ _really_ hope that you don't believe that I am trying to take credit for your work. If you take another look, my original patch had the following hunk:
+ + /* Make sure that bad_lba is one of the sectors that the + * command was trying to access. + */ + if (bad_lba < start_lba || + bad_lba >= start_lba + xfer_size / sector_size) + goto out; + Your response patch had the following hunk: + if (bad_lba < start_lba) + goto out; So I don't feel that it was dishonest for me to submit this as "my" work. If you were offended, then I apologize. > I think it would've been much clearer if you had > singled out the problems you were seeing with your > HW and sent a single problem with a single patch per > single email. > > Agreed. Sometimes it is difficult to predict when something that seems so straightforward will generate so much controversy. Tony - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
