On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:44:56AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > On 15.09.2010 [12:37:58 -0600], Grant Likely wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan <n...@us.ibm.com> > > wrote: > > > Without this change drivers, such as ibmvscsi, fail to load with the > > > previous change. > > > > Shouldn't this patch be ordered before the previous change then to > > preserve bisectability? > > You are probably right. I wasn't sure if I should fold it in or keep it > separate. I should have changed the order, though. Sorry about that!
It's such a small patch I would just fold it in. > > > Also, patch descriptions should be explicit about what the "previous > > change" refers to. Once this is committed, git log may very well > > insert other changes from other branches between this commit and > > whatever "previous change" refers to. > > Yep -- what's the best way to make the reference? By subject from the > patch? Obviously I don't have the SHA1 with which the commit will go > upstream. By name should be good. As long as a reader doesn't need background information from your head to figure out why the change was made then it should be okay. g. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
