On 12/2/20 2:31 PM, JeffleXu wrote:
>
>
> On 12/2/20 1:14 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 02 2020 at 12:03am -0500,
>> Mike Snitzer <snit...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What you've done here is fairly chaotic/disruptive:
>>> 1) you emailed a patch out that isn't needed or ideal, I dealt already
>>> staged a DM fix in linux-next for 5.10-rcX, see:
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-5.10-rcX&id=f28de262ddf09b635095bdeaf0e07ff507b3c41b
>>> 2) you replied to your patch and started referencing snippets of this
>>> other patch's header (now staged for 5.10-rcX via Jens' block tree):
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=block-5.10&id=7e7986f9d3ba69a7375a41080a1f8c8012cb0923
>>> - why not reply to _that_ patch in response something stated in it?
>>
>> I now see you did reply to the original v2 patch:
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2020-December/msg00006.html
>>
>> but you changed the Subject to have a "dm" prefix for some reason.
>
> In my original purpose, this is a new patch, 'dm: XXXXXXXX'. This patch
> should coexist with your patch 'block: XXXXXX'.
>
> Can I say that it's totally a mistake ;)
s/mistake/misunderstanding
>
>
>> Strange but OK.. though it got really weird when you cut-and-paste your
>> other DM patch in reply at the bottom of your email. If you find
>> yourself cross referencing emails and cutting and pasting like that, you
>> probably shouldn't. Makes it chaotic for others to follow along.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Jeffle
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel