On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 21:25 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Sun, 2017-05-07 at 15:20 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > aborted = true is only set when transport_generic_free_cmd() > > is called with wait_for_tasks = true, and neither srpt nor isert have > > ever invoked transport_generic_free_cmd() with wait_for_tasks = true in > > upstream code. > > Right. Although this patch is not wrong, this patch is not needed with the > current transport_generic_free_cmd() implementation but has to be folded in > the patch that eliminates the "aborted" and "tas" variables (which is not > in the series I posted). I don't give a toss if the patch is logically a NOP, and 'is not wrong'. The commit message was completely bogus, and the backtrace was from some random out-of-tree junk that was obviously not tested against the current target-pending/for-next. And to top it off, I've already pointed out these facts three months ago, and you just ignored the response. The point is, it's sloppy and means I have to repeat myself over and over again. Not to mention in that very same thread from three months ago, I asked (again( to stop mixing bug-fixes with random improvements: http://www.spinics.net/lists/target-devel/msg14665.html "To reiterate the importance of having bug-fixes, especially those intended for stable, always be leading other patches.. There is no way for a maintainer to know which bug-fixes are to existing code unless they precede all other patches and not intermixed with various other changes. The bug-fixes to existing upstream code need to be tested on their own without the other changes (especially those that effect the same area) invalidating the tests." How many more times will I have to repeat myself before it sinks in..? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
