From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: Prepare for hard drives w/ non-512 sector sizes Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:08:14 -0400 Message-ID: <49DCF61E.2000703@garzik.org> References: <20090408065955.GA29845@havoc.gtf.org> <20090408183243.GK20983@parisc-linux.org> <49DCF14F.1060407@garzik.org> <20090408185639.GL20983@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:39066 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752618AbZDHTIR (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:08:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090408185639.GL20983@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, LKML Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 02:47:43PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 02:59:55AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >>>> I checked this into libata-dev.git#sectsize and #NEXT... comments >>>> welcome. It's willy's patch, cut down such that it introduces no >>>> major behavior changes [READ CAPACITY improves slightly]. >>> Umm. If you wanted me to split the patch up, why didn't you ask? >> I've had trouble until recently simply getting you to post patches at >> all. It was faster and simpler for me to do it myself. > > ?! Are you referring to the one incident where you asked me if I had > any patches for 2.6.30, I pointed at the TRIM patches and you quibbled > that I hadn't reposted the updates, only a git tree? On multiple occasions. You're the only one I have to poke to get updates on pending libata patches, in some cases, patches that really should have gone upstream long ago. >>> I really do think I should be credited as 'Author' here. You credit me >>> in the patch description, but the automated tools don't show that. >> If that is your preference, that's fine. I did it this way to avoid >> your taking the blame for anything I did, while still noting in the >> patch description you did the original work. > > Yes, that's my preference. It's also the documented way to do things in > SubmittingPatches. The patch was changed from your original work, in several places. That makes the issue of From header not so clear cut. See what I said about blame etc. in the original email :) If there were bugs in my changes, you would probably be annoyed to get bug reports about that :) Jeff