On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:40 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Robert Love <robert.w.love@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:27:28 -0700 > > > Please don't apply this patch to net-next. The other 4 patches in this > > series should be fine without it. If this patch is applied to net-next > > it means that most/all of the other fcoe features (that will go through > > linux-scsi) become dependent on this patch. > > > > I was hoping to push the other fcoe features as-is and then push this > > patch through linux-scsi after the other 4 patches in this series had > > been merged by you. > > Sure, I was just reading over this stuff. > > But on the other hand, linux-scsi will be dependant upon net-next-2.6 > because this patch here uses flags that will only be added there. > Yes, absolutely, but it's only this small patch that creates the dependency. I figured that all of the other fcoe patches could go into James' scsi-misc tree and get merged first. Then this one could go into his scsi-post-merge tree and depend on net-next. It's really up to you and James, I just thought that would be easier. > Therefore there has to be a dependency in one direction or another, > the question is which one works better for you FCOE guys. > > The best thing to do in these situations is usually to create the > dependency and merge into the tree where most of the subsystem > specific bits (and thus developer ACKs) are needed. And then > just occaisionally go and ask the other subsystem guys for ACKs > when necessary. > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- 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
