From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add proper module ID tables to Adaptec aic7[9x]xxdrivers Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:12:27 +0200 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040621161227.GD30236@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <20040621161441.20dfcee6.ak@suse.de> <40D6FEFC.9050005@adaptec.com> <1087832273.2702.14.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <40D70837.8070303@adaptec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FFoLq8A0u+X9iRU8" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:52703 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264404AbUFUQMw (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:12:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40D70837.8070303@adaptec.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org --FFoLq8A0u+X9iRU8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:09:27PM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 17:30, Luben Tuikov wrote: > > > >>Thank you Andi for the patches. aic7xxx drivers are due for update > >>to use the new timeout infrastructure. I'll incorporate them in, > >>and do some testing. > > > > > >cool. > >Would you please consider the update to be done in small incremental > >changes/steps ? Eg each separate change/bugfix a separate patch ? > >Would make life a lot easier for me (distro kernel guy) and for James to > >be able to diagnose regressions a lot better by binary searching > >changesets etc etc. > > Yep, no problem. > > Current kernel version of, say, aic79xxx is 1.3.11, and I have > 2.0.12, they are 226 patches away. Each patch is a submission I was actually hoping you would have started from the kernel.org driver not the adaptec weird fork justin has been maintaining ;( > into perforce. I can extract each and every one of those 226 > and can post them somewhere on a website (hosting anyone? ;-) ), > so that anyone can review them. it's not just about review, it's also about merging it in parts so that you don't need to binary chop through 226 patches if something fails, but only through like 30 or so. And then a week later the next 30 go in etc etc --FFoLq8A0u+X9iRU8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA1wjqxULwo51rQBIRAmEpAJ474g6P+XyJVt5dth7gwpUu5UEr/QCdHle2 jPca0CnhonHgZJ1DQZ+VTkA= =FZJ4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FFoLq8A0u+X9iRU8--