On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 22:35 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > However, again, this patch series intermixes improvements, new features > and bug-fixes with no specific context. > > This is probably the 7th time I've requested to put bug-fixes first > followed by other improvements, but it still falls on deaf ears.. > > In case the last times didn't sink in, putting bug-fixes first is > important because: > > - To know which bug-fixes are for existing code, instead of bug-fixes > that are a consequence of other changes. > - To know bug-fixes for existing code have been tested + verified > separate from any other changes. Hello Nic, I think it's unreasonable from your side to reply with a request to reorder patches only. What you should do as a maintainer is to review these patches instead of asking me to reorder these patches. Almost all the bug fixes in this series apply fine individually on your for-next branch so it's easy to verify that these patches indeed fix the bug that has mentioned in the patch description and do not introduce any regressions. The most important dependency in this patch series is that patch "target: Fix overflow/underflow handling of commands with a Data-Out buffer" should be applied after the patch "target/iscsi: Avoid overflowing the receive buffer". > For the former, every series I've gotten from you in the last seven > months has had at least one patch that is a bug-fix for some issue the > series itself introduced, and it's never been obvious. That's not correct. Additionally, the number of bugs and regressions you have introduced personally in the target code base is much higher than the number of bugs in patches I posted. Would you like it if I would mention that every time I post a patch series? If not, please stop this kind of non-productive blaming. Bart.-- 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
