From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: RFC: Add I/O class enum values to Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:55:43 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1149536457.3479.2.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]:40791 "EHLO sj-iport-5.cisco.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751343AbWFETzs (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:55:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1149536457.3479.2.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> (James Bottomley's message of "Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:40:57 -0500") Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org James> No objection here ... but if you do, it will entangle our James> git trees even more nastily, since the srp.h file is James> created in the scsi-misc-2.6 tree. No, I think we're OK. srp.h is already in Linus's tree (it went in as part of the original IB SRP initiator merge), and scsi-misc doesn't have any changes after ec448a0a36 (which is already upstream) in it. So putting the IO Class change in my tree actually reduces the dependency between our trees, since I can put the IB SRP changes in my tree without worrying about you merging the srp.h change first. - R.