On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 10:29 -0800, Robert Love wrote: > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 18:49 -0800, Mike Christie wrote: > > Robert Love wrote: > > > The following series implements bug fixes, adds a module param for runtime debug logging and cleans up some coding style issues. The top patch is a patch that was posted to linux-scsi on 01/04, but doesn't seem to have made it in yet. > > > > > > This patch set is based on Linus' tree + the Open-FCoE patches submitted to linux-scsi on 01/21. > > > > > > > Were these patches and that other patchset for 2.6.29-rc? This one had > > some non bug fixes. I was not sure if you can do that in a rc. I was not > > sure if because it is a new driver you get a exception since there can > > be no regressions. > > > They were intended for the RC phase, should I have been more explicit? > I'm not sure what the policy is exactly, I've heard that the RC phase is > only for regressions, but I'm not sure how that applies to new drivers. > We have nothing to regress from and I'd prefer getting these fixes in so > that FCoE in 2.6.29 is as stable as can be. OK, so how it works is firstly you have to tell me it's for rc fixes ... I can sometimes get this from the subject (if it contains words like bug fix). Secondly, I need enhancements and fixes separated so they can be separately applied to the different trees (if you have an entanglement, I can rebase the misc tree to pick up the needed rc-fixes dependencies). So if you separate the patches (or just tell me what's a bug fix ... and they apply individually) I can put them in the rc-fixes tree. James -- 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
