Re: [PATCH 00/17] Open-FCoE Updates

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 10:29 -0800, Robert Love wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 18:49 -0800, Mike Christie wrote:
> > Robert Love wrote:
> > > The following series implements bug fixes, adds a module param for runtime debug logging and cleans up some coding style issues. The top patch is a patch that was posted to linux-scsi on 01/04, but doesn't seem to have made it in yet.
> > > 
> > > This patch set is based on Linus' tree + the Open-FCoE patches submitted to linux-scsi on 01/21.
> > > 
> > 
> > Were these patches and that other patchset for 2.6.29-rc? This one had 
> > some non bug fixes. I was not sure if you can do that in a rc. I was not 
> > sure if because it is a new driver you get a exception since there can 
> > be no regressions.
> > 
> They were intended for the RC phase, should I have been more explicit?
> I'm not sure what the policy is exactly, I've heard that the RC phase is
> only for regressions, but I'm not sure how that applies to new drivers.
> We have nothing to regress from and I'd prefer getting these fixes in so
> that FCoE in 2.6.29 is as stable as can be.

OK, so how it works is firstly you have to tell me it's for rc fixes ...
I can sometimes get this from the subject (if it contains words like bug
fix).   Secondly, I need enhancements and fixes separated so they can be
separately applied to the different trees (if you have an entanglement,
I can rebase the misc tree to pick up the needed rc-fixes dependencies).

So if you separate the patches (or just tell me what's a bug fix ... and
they apply individually) I can put them in the rc-fixes tree.

James