From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:10:19 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jeff Moyer Cc: Christoph Hellwig , keith.busch@intel.com, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, sagi@lightbits.io, ming.l@ssi.samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] Revert "blk-mq: add blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx" Message-ID: <20160608141019.GB1020@lst.de> References: <1465389066-19119-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1465389066-19119-2-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: List-ID: On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 09:58:38AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Christoph Hellwig writes: > > > Just for book keeping. The next patch brings it back with some changes. > > That's a strange thing to do, and breaks bisectability. Why not just > update the function? Because it's just an updated to a not yet applied series. The idea is that Jens could just take patch 2 if we get a positive review or two for it. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:10:19 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 01/11] Revert "blk-mq: add blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx" In-Reply-To: References: <1465389066-19119-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1465389066-19119-2-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> Message-ID: <20160608141019.GB1020@lst.de> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016@09:58:38AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Christoph Hellwig writes: > > > Just for book keeping. The next patch brings it back with some changes. > > That's a strange thing to do, and breaks bisectability. Why not just > update the function? Because it's just an updated to a not yet applied series. The idea is that Jens could just take patch 2 if we get a positive review or two for it.