On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 21:24 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > This is the second version, with a fault in the previous version fixed. > > Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > This patch fails to apply on top of your other patch that adds a exchange cache. I have fixed it locally and will add the fixed patch to fcoe-next. You also omitted any patch description in this patch other than it being the second version. Can you please add more verbose descriptions to your patches. The best advice given to me was to have a problem statement, a statement on what the solution is and then any technical details. I realize that some of your patches are very straight-forward and don't require that degree of detail, but some have been a bit more involved and "seems like there is a problem" doesn't give much context before looking at the changes themselves. It would help me when reviewing your changes. Thanks, //Rob -- 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
