James Bottomley wrote: > 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. > Thanks for the clarification. Will the fixes I resent on Friday make it into 2.6.29?-- 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
