On 12/2/20 2:31 PM, JeffleXu wrote: > > > On 12/2/20 1:14 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote: >> 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. > > In my original purpose, this is a new patch, 'dm: XXXXXXXX'. This patch > should coexist with your patch 'block: XXXXXX'. > > Can I say that it's totally a mistake ;) s/mistake/misunderstanding > > >> 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 >> > -- Thanks, Jeffle
