On 10/16/2017 01:07 PM, Michael Lyle wrote:
> Jens--
>
> Thanks for your patience.
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 10/16/2017 11:34 AM, Michael Lyle wrote:
>>> Sorry this got through to linux-block, was detected by the kbuilds test
>>> robot. NSEC_PER_SEC is a long constant; 2.5 * 10^9 doesn't fit in a
>>> signed long constant.
>>
>> Applied, but you should remember to add Fixes lines when a patch
>> explicitly fixes a problem introduced by a previous patch. Ala:
>>
>> Fixes: e41166c5c44e ("bcache: writeback rate shouldn't artifically clamp")
>>
>> so that backports have an easier time finding dependent fixes.
>
> Sorry about that too. I considered the Fixes: tag but didn't know if
> the hashes would "hold true" into mainline. Now I see Linus merges
> your tree so the hash should be durable.
They are durable once applied, so yeah.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
