On Wed, Dec 02 2020 at 12:03am -0500, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What you've done here is fairly chaotic/disruptive: > 1) you emailed a patch out that isn't needed or ideal, I dealt already > staged a DM fix in linux-next for 5.10-rcX, see: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-5.10-rcX&id=f28de262ddf09b635095bdeaf0e07ff507b3c41b > 2) you replied to your patch and started referencing snippets of this > other patch's header (now staged for 5.10-rcX via Jens' block tree): > https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=block-5.10&id=7e7986f9d3ba69a7375a41080a1f8c8012cb0923 > - why not reply to _that_ patch in response something stated in it? I now see you did reply to the original v2 patch: https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2020-December/msg00006.html but you changed the Subject to have a "dm" prefix for some reason. Strange but OK.. though it got really weird when you cut-and-paste your other DM patch in reply at the bottom of your email. If you find yourself cross referencing emails and cutting and pasting like that, you probably shouldn't. Makes it chaotic for others to follow along. Thanks, Mike
