Hi. On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 08:33, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post > Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting? > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > A: No. > Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? > > http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top > > :) I'm well aware of the above. Alas, I haven't used mutt properly in about 15 years and I'm still doing everything with Gmail. Given that I was referring to the entire email thread, I punted on finding a place to insert a comment. BTW, there's a typo in the Q&A above. s/Were/Where/ :) > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 08:27:55AM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote: > > Hi Greg. > > > > Is this patch (and the similar one for 4.9) queued? > > f5bbbbe4d635 ("blk-mq: sync the update nr_hw_queues with > blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter") is in the following stable releases: > 4.4.224 4.9.219 4.14.176 4.19 > > Do you not see it there? We are referring to different "it"s. Yours: f5bbbbe4d635 is the upstream patch that went into v4.19-rc1 and which you back-ported to at least some of these kernels. This is clearly there. Mine: the commit sent earlier in this email thread - it's a re-back-port, as I think the original back-port for 4.14 (and similarly for 4.9) is incorrect. This has clearly not reached public git, hence my question about whether the change was queued. These are the ids of messages containing my commits: 4.14: 20200608093950.86293-1-gprocida@xxxxxxxxxx 4.9: 20200608094030.87031-1-gprocida@xxxxxxxxxx > Or is there some other upstream commit you are referring to here? No. > thanks, > > greg k-h I hope this clears things up. Regards, Giuliano.
