From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Battersby Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] sd: make error handling more robust Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:34:59 -0500 Message-ID: <47A72293.8050409@cybernetics.com> References: <668582.37066.qm@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from host64.cybernetics.com ([70.169.137.4]:2637 "EHLO mail.cybernetics.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751611AbYBDOfA (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:35:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <668582.37066.qm@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: ltuikov@yahoo.com Cc: James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Luben Tuikov wrote: > You then took hunk #2 (2 lines) of the patch I sent > you and submitted it as your own, and then I acked > "your" patch. > I _really_ _really_ hope that you don't believe that I am trying to take credit for your work. If you take another look, my original patch had the following hunk: + + /* Make sure that bad_lba is one of the sectors that the + * command was trying to access. + */ + if (bad_lba < start_lba || + bad_lba >= start_lba + xfer_size / sector_size) + goto out; + Your response patch had the following hunk: + if (bad_lba < start_lba) + goto out; So I don't feel that it was dishonest for me to submit this as "my" work. If you were offended, then I apologize. > I think it would've been much clearer if you had > singled out the problems you were seeing with your > HW and sent a single problem with a single patch per > single email. > > Agreed. Sometimes it is difficult to predict when something that seems so straightforward will generate so much controversy. Tony