> On 4 Sep 2018, at 02.54, Matias Bjørling <mb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 09/03/2018 11:16 AM, Javier Gonzalez wrote: >>> 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? > > I am with the patchset posted, that should have the order. I just > wanted to mention it. One thing that would be good, if you do have > patches you have upstream, feel free to push them in smaller > increments, so we can pull them in as we go. Only a nitpick, it is > obviously up to you guys how you want to do it :) > Sure. If we can improve the workflow to make things easier for you, then we should.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
