Patch status?

Patch status?

[JWP]

Hello Mr Zak,

Could you please tell me the status of the patch set I submitted
on 09/27/2014 titled: "[PATCH 0/7] hwclock patch cover letter"

Thank you.

Re: Patch status?

[Karel Zak]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:15:27PM -0400, JWP wrote:
> Hello Mr Zak,
> 
> Could you please tell me the status of the patch set I submitted
> on 09/27/2014 titled: "[PATCH 0/7] hwclock patch cover letter"

 Sorry for the delay, I was busy with sfdisk and RHEL. I'm going to
 review it right now.

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak@redhat.com>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com

sfdisk.8

[JWP]

Karel,

Shouldn't the 'Since version 2.25' notes in sfdisk.8 be
'Since version 2.26'?  It doesn't look like these changes
are in 2.25, or am I missing something?

Will

Re: sfdisk.8

[Karel Zak]

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 01:49:22PM -0500, JWP wrote:
> Shouldn't the 'Since version 2.25' notes in sfdisk.8 be
> 'Since version 2.26'?  It doesn't look like these changes
> are in 2.25, or am I missing something?

Ah... good catch, sure, you're right. Fixed. Thanks! 

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak@redhat.com>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com

patch status?

[Mike Steiner]

I sent my first patch to the list a couple days ago and haven't heard
anything back yet. Did I do something wrong, or is everyone just real
busy? It wasn't a bug fix or anything important, so it's no big deal
but I'm just curious.

Mike Steiner

Re: patch status?

[M. Asselstine]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Mike Steiner <mike65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> I sent my first patch to the list a couple days ago and haven't heard
> anything back yet. Did I do something wrong, or is everyone just real
> busy? It wasn't a bug fix or anything important, so it's no big deal
> but I'm just curious.
>

I noticed that your patch was only sent to the KJ mailing list and not
to any maintainer. Although many maintainers, such as Andrew Morton
and David Miller, watch this list it is important to include someone
in the TO of your email that has an interest in your patch and has a
tree to apply it to. Most of this is covered in
Documentation/SubmittingPatches.  I have looked at your patch and I am
not sure introducing such a change is really necessary, this might
also be part of why you have not heard anything.

Mark

> Mike Steiner
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Patch status?

[Alan Stern]

James:

I haven't gotten any feedback about these two patch submissions, and they 
aren't in the current scsi-misc GIT:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=116059987422907&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=115947226830808&w=2

Alan Stern

Re: Patch status?

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 10:45 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> James:
> 
> I haven't gotten any feedback about these two patch submissions, and they 
> aren't in the current scsi-misc GIT:
> 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=116059987422907&w=2

This one looks OK ... it's such a tiny micro optimisation, though.  I
think I just lost it along the way, sorry.

> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=115947226830808&w=2

This one has warning phrases like "There are two potential weaknesses in
the patch.  One is that when the bad
sense data occurs, it unconditionally calls scsi_requeue_command().  Could
this lead to an infinite loop?"  which aren't conducive to immediate application.

I'll take a look at it when I get some time.

James

Re: Patch status?

[Alan Stern]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, James Bottomley wrote:

> On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 10:45 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > James:
> > 
> > I haven't gotten any feedback about these two patch submissions, and they 
> > aren't in the current scsi-misc GIT:
> > 
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=116059987422907&w=2
> 
> This one looks OK ... it's such a tiny micro optimisation, though.  I
> think I just lost it along the way, sorry.
> 
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=115947226830808&w=2
> 
> This one has warning phrases like "There are two potential weaknesses in
> the patch.  One is that when the bad
> sense data occurs, it unconditionally calls scsi_requeue_command().  Could
> this lead to an infinite loop?"  which aren't conducive to immediate application.
> 
> I'll take a look at it when I get some time.
> 
> James

Okay, thanks.  I just wanted to make sure they didn't vanish down a
black hole.

Alan Stern