From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Reed Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] mpt fusion: error recovery improvements,andsynchronizing internal commands Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:38:19 -0500 Message-ID: <46F98DDB.8070407@sgi.com> References: <664A4EBB07F29743873A87CF62C26D709D940E@NAMAIL4.ad.lsil.com> <46F95586.2020504@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:59708 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751305AbXIYWiW (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:38:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46F95586.2020504@garzik.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: "Moore, Eric" , James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > Moore, Eric wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:32 AM, James Bottomley wrote: >> >>>> Youve rejected the error recovery patchs, which is fair enough. >>> Just the separation ... the actual patch looks OK. >>> >> >> I'll will continue working to separate the "error recovery >> improvements:" into smaller feature add, but will take some time. I >> want some constructive feedback, and too big of patch is deterring some >> people from looking at it. > > I think it's fair to break it up, as long as its clearly noted that the > patch is for review only. Any chance the changes, properly documented, could be accepted as one big patch? Breaking this code into smaller patches, when it's really intended as a driver update, could prove problematic. Mike > > Jeff > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html