> On 31 Aug 2018, at 15.57, Matias Bjørling <mb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 08/31/2018 03:34 PM, Javier González wrote: >> Matias, >> This patchset implements support for retrieving chunk metadata when >> submitting a reset/erase command. Patches 0 and 1 are small fixes that >> can be directly merged into your patch: >> lightnvm: move bad block and chunk state logic to core >> Also, note that these do not apply on top of your for-4.20/core due them >> depending on patches that I sent before that you have not picked up yet. >> You can see them though in for-4.20/pblk. I'll rebase as patches in the >> list appear in your tree. > > Thanks. It is really confusing when you guys maintains an implicit order and posts the patches separately. I will appreciate that patches that are related are posted together, such that I don't have to manually track what comes before another. That makes it less of a pain for me to keep track of and we can keep the reviews together. > > This is the patches that I have in the pipeline (from before the e-mails from today): > > - This serie - Pending review > - Serie: pblk: support variable OOB size - Waiting on review from Igor > - lightnvm: pblk: recover open lines on 2.0 devices. Which doesn't apply due to the fixes to the pad distance patch. > Yes, I know and I apologize - we should have a better flow. What do you say that for windows like this, where we have a number of patches that have dependencies that we post them in meaningful patchsets and point to a branch where they are ordered, like in a PR? Then we can rebase and propagate changes properly? For this window, I'll rebase the rest of the patches in for-4.20/pblk on top of your for-4.20/core, then we can propagate changes as they come. Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
