On 2011-01-10 20:27, Luben Tuikov wrote: > --- On Mon, 1/10/11, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> That commit isn't a valid sha in my tree. What commit >> do you mean? >>> >>>> skipped tag 0 by virtue of setting last_tag to >>>> 0. This commit sets it to -1, in order to start >>>> and loop over from 0, thus generating tags >>>> [0,max_tag-1], instead of [1,max_tag-1]. >>> >>> Irregardless, patch looks good. That's definitely a >> bug. Thanks! >> >> But not in my kernel, what tree are you looking at? I don't >> remember >> seeing any tag patches, and they should be in my tree if >> there are. > > It applies on top of this patch: > > From 67869fb9fdfa04503b250d59e086c15f1698aea0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 Ah I see. It doesn't make sense to mention shas in your own tree in commit messages for patches you send, as they will not be valid unless your tree is actually pulled from. And since this patch is not in any tree, and at least I didn't agree with it, then you should post your updated fixed patch instead of sending a patch against a broken patch. -- Jens Axboe -- 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
