Andrew Morton wrote:
Actually I (and probably others) generally avoid cc'ing mailing lists on
patch traffic. I spew out enough script-generated traffic as it is.
You pretty much always ensure the driver author gets CC'd, which is
exemplary :)
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your
code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it
every minute and hour, simply did not Cc: the SCSI list - how am i, a
largely
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:57:36 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your
> >> code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it
> >>
* Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your
>> code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it
>> every minute and hour, simply did not Cc: the SCSI list - how am i, a
>> largely outside
* Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your
code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it
every minute and hour, simply did not Cc: the SCSI list - how am i, a
largely outside party in
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:57:36 +0100 Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your
code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it
every minute and
Andrew Morton wrote:
Actually I (and probably others) generally avoid cc'ing mailing lists on
patch traffic. I spew out enough script-generated traffic as it is.
You pretty much always ensure the driver author gets CC'd, which is
exemplary :)
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your
code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it
every minute and hour, simply did not Cc: the SCSI list - how am i, a
largely
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 03:56:04PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> ( This call has been introduced upstream 3 weeks ago by commit
> >>> 8a4df120b07, but the PCI tree has apparently not been fully
> >>> re-tested with
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
( This call has been introduced upstream 3 weeks ago by commit
8a4df120b07, but the PCI tree has apparently not been fully
re-tested with Linus-latest since that point. )
Wait, my testing caught this. I made the change to the patch
Ingo Molnar wrote:
so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your
code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it every
minute and hour, simply did not Cc: the SCSI list - how am i, a largely
outside party in this matter, supposed to notice that 3
* Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> so i'm still totally befuddled why you think that there was anything
>> particularly wrong or unhelpful about me replying to the specific
>> pull request that introduced a particular breakage into the kernel.
>> Had i mailed to lkml with a terse
* Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ( This call has been introduced upstream 3 weeks ago by commit
> > 8a4df120b07, but the PCI tree has apparently not been fully
> > re-tested with Linus-latest since that point. )
>
> Wait, my testing caught this. I made the change to the patch
* James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you seriously telling us that it required too much investigation
> on your part to figure out that something with a compile failure in
> drivers/scsi might belong on the scsi list?
This is getting silly. Let me repeat it, because IMO it's
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
it would have been totally appropriate for me to just send a mail to lkml
with the proper subject line about the breakage. (I might even have
decided to stay completely silent about the issue and fix it for my own
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 12:13:22PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > PCI: Remove users of pci_enable_device_bars()
> > PCI: Remove pci_enable_device_bars()
>
> simple allyesconfig testing found a build failure due to last night's
> PCI merge,
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 18:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> ===
> >> --- linux.orig/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> >> +++ linux/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> >> @@
* Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> it would have been totally appropriate for me to just send a mail to lkml
>> with the proper subject line about the breakage. (I might even have
>> decided to stay completely silent about the issue and fix it for my own
>>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
it would have been totally appropriate for me to just send a mail to
lkml with the proper subject line about the breakage. (I might even have
decided to stay completely silent about the issue and fix it for my own
build, letting you guys figure it out.)
Oh come on... You
* Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> ===
>> --- linux.orig/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
>> +++ linux/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
>> @@ -1894,7 +1894,7 @@ lpfc_pci_probe_one(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 10:51 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > ===
> > --- linux.orig/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> > +++ linux/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> > @@ -1894,7 +1894,7 @@ lpfc_pci_probe_one(struct
* Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PCI: Remove users of pci_enable_device_bars()
> PCI: Remove pci_enable_device_bars()
simple allyesconfig testing found a build failure due to last night's
PCI merge, on 32-bit x86:
drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c: In function
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PCI: Remove users of pci_enable_device_bars()
PCI: Remove pci_enable_device_bars()
simple allyesconfig testing found a build failure due to last night's
PCI merge, on 32-bit x86:
drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c: In function 'lpfc_pci_probe_one':
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 10:51 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
===
--- linux.orig/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
+++ linux/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
@@ -1894,7 +1894,7 @@ lpfc_pci_probe_one(struct pci_dev *pdev,
* Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
===
--- linux.orig/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
+++ linux/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
@@ -1894,7 +1894,7 @@ lpfc_pci_probe_one(struct pci_dev *pdev,
uint16_t
Ingo Molnar wrote:
it would have been totally appropriate for me to just send a mail to
lkml with the proper subject line about the breakage. (I might even have
decided to stay completely silent about the issue and fix it for my own
build, letting you guys figure it out.)
Oh come on... You
* Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
it would have been totally appropriate for me to just send a mail to lkml
with the proper subject line about the breakage. (I might even have
decided to stay completely silent about the issue and fix it for my own
build, letting
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 18:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
===
--- linux.orig/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
+++ linux/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
@@ -1894,7 +1894,7
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 12:13:22PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PCI: Remove users of pci_enable_device_bars()
PCI: Remove pci_enable_device_bars()
simple allyesconfig testing found a build failure due to last night's
PCI merge, on 32-bit
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
it would have been totally appropriate for me to just send a mail to lkml
with the proper subject line about the breakage. (I might even have
decided to stay completely silent about the issue and fix it for my own
* James Bottomley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you seriously telling us that it required too much investigation
on your part to figure out that something with a compile failure in
drivers/scsi might belong on the scsi list?
This is getting silly. Let me repeat it, because IMO it's really
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
( This call has been introduced upstream 3 weeks ago by commit
8a4df120b07, but the PCI tree has apparently not been fully
re-tested with Linus-latest since that point. )
Wait, my testing caught this. I made the change to the patch myself,
* Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so i'm still totally befuddled why you think that there was anything
particularly wrong or unhelpful about me replying to the specific
pull request that introduced a particular breakage into the kernel.
Had i mailed to lkml with a terse kernel build
Ingo Molnar wrote:
so please tell me Jeff. If Greg, who is the super-maintainer of your
code area, and who deals with your code every day and changes it every
minute and hour, simply did not Cc: the SCSI list - how am i, a largely
outside party in this matter, supposed to notice that 3
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
( This call has been introduced upstream 3 weeks ago by commit
8a4df120b07, but the PCI tree has apparently not been fully
re-tested with Linus-latest since that point. )
Wait, my testing caught this. I made the change to the patch
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 03:56:04PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
( This call has been introduced upstream 3 weeks ago by commit
8a4df120b07, but the PCI tree has apparently not been fully
re-tested with Linus-latest since that
36 matches
Mail list logo
