On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 22:28 -0700, Andrew Vasquez wrote: > > Ok, we've verified and backported the three changes through to 2.6.24. > > The patches in this order: > > > > [SCSI] qla2xxx: Add dev_loss_tmo_callbk/terminate_rport_io callback support. > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=5f3a9a207f1fccde476dd31b4c63ead2967d934f > > > > [SCSI] qla2xxx: Set an rport's dev_loss_tmo value in a consistent manner. > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=85821c906cf3563a00a3d98fa380a2581a7a5ff1 > > > > [PATCH 2/8] qla2xxx: Correct synchronization of software/firmware fcport states. > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi/43971 > > > > apply cleanly to 2.6.26 (git-am clean), and with minor 'fuzz' (git-am > > warns) while applying the first patch against 2.6.25 and 2.6.24. > > > > James B., quick question, from what I recall of the 'stable' process, > > I'll need to wait till the 3rd patch hits Linus' tree before I can > > submit to stable@xxxxxxxxxxx Since I can't 'CC to stable' the first > > two patches (they are already in Linus' tree), what's the best way to > > accomidate this disjoint submission? > > Assuming they're OK to apply individually, you just send the first two > to stable now quoting the upstream commit id As I mentioned, the first two do in fact apply cleanly to 2.6.26. There's a bit of fuzz with .25/24 application of the first patch, so a basic git-am may fail, whereas a 'patch -p1' works... > and I'll add the CC: stable > tag on the third which should cause it to sumbit automatically as soon > as Linus pulls it. Ok, thanks. I'll send the patches over to stable@... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
