Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] staging: lustre: lnet: code cleanups
Hm, that's unfortunate - but my own fault for lack of proper etiquette. I'll give this a week or two to settle, and build up patches against other parts of lustre in the meantime. BTW, you keep mentioning a v5 that I sent. Where is that, exactly? The last round of patches I sent I've kept labeled as "PATCH v4", and I only hit git send-email once. Could you forward me something from this v5 series, so I could see if anything is amiss on my end? -- Mike Shuey On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 6:14 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > We would have applied the v3 patchset but now I don't know because we're > up to v5. We can't apply v5 because there are problems with it. No > one responded to v3 so Greg still might apply it or he might find these > email threads too scrambled and delete everything and ask for a resend. > > It's pretty messed up so just wait for Greg to get to it before sending > more patches? > > Basically you should only send patches which you assume will be applied. > If no one responds after 3 days then probably that means everyone from > the peanut gallery (Me, Sudip, Joe, the lustre devs), we don't have an > issue. Then Greg does the last review (2-3 weeks later perhaps). But > if it makes it past all the other reviews then generally Greg also will > be ok with it. > > Greg applies patches in first come, first applied order. If they don't > apply then you have to redo it. He doesn't invest a lot of time into > figuring out why. So you have to coordinate with the other devs, it's > up to you how you do that. > > regards, > dan carpenter > ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] staging: lustre: lnet: code cleanups
Ah - that explains it. I added additional files to the series, but simply re-applied the original round of patches. They would've not been tagged as v4, while the patches pertaining to the newly-modified files had v4 in the subject. I'll be more thorough in future patch revisions. Thanks for the explanation. -- Mike Shuey On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 08:09:54AM -0400, Michael Shuey wrote: >> BTW, you keep mentioning a v5 that I sent. Where is that, exactly? >> The last round of patches I sent I've kept labeled as "PATCH v4", and >> I only hit git send-email once. Could you forward me something from >> this v5 series, so I could see if anything is amiss on my end? > > I think it was not a v5. But what happened is in your series some > of the patches were marked as v4 and some were not having any version > so it appeared like a fresh series again. Like 1/13,2/13,3/13 has v4 > but the others donot have a version. > > regards > sudip ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 1/3] staging: lustre: checkpatch cleanups for nidstring.c
I suspect you're over-thinking it. The maintainers appear to be reacting to the different types of style changes - "checkpatch cleanups" is an awfully broad commit message. I'd suggest breaking this patch (and any others like it) into two pieces; one with whitespace cleanups, and one with the "== NULL" fixes (and mentioning both by kind in the commit message, rather than just attributing to checkpatch). Then issue a v2 of the series, and see where you land. Of course, YMMV. :-) -- Mike Shuey On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Simmons, James A. wrote: >>On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 07:28:21PM -0400, James Simmons wrote: >>> With nidstring now having the latest fixes we can >>> now clean up all the remaining checkpatch errors >>> for nidstring.c. >> >>Please be specific as to exactly what you changed, and break it up into >>one-patch-per-thing. And no, "fix all checkpatch errors" is not "one >>thing" > > Hmm. This makes me think I might be going about this wrong. Instead of > doing style changes per file I should be doing one style change per subsystem > instead. Unless you prefer doing these style changes on per file base. Perhaps > for now I should focus on pushing the fixes that have cumulated and once > caught up then finished off the style issues. > ___ > lustre-devel mailing list > lustre-de...@lists.lustre.org > http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
