From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH] [BLOCK] Allow tag 0 to be generated Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:31:49 +0100 Message-ID: <4D2B5EA5.9030900@fusionio.com> References: <835205.47474.qm@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.fusionio.com ([64.244.102.30]:39948 "EHLO mx1.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754339Ab1AJTb5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:31:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <835205.47474.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: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On 2011-01-10 20:27, Luben Tuikov wrote: > --- On Mon, 1/10/11, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> That commit isn't a valid sha in my tree. What commit >> do you mean? >>> >>>> skipped tag 0 by virtue of setting last_tag to >>>> 0. This commit sets it to -1, in order to start >>>> and loop over from 0, thus generating tags >>>> [0,max_tag-1], instead of [1,max_tag-1]. >>> >>> Irregardless, patch looks good. That's definitely a >> bug. Thanks! >> >> But not in my kernel, what tree are you looking at? I don't >> remember >> seeing any tag patches, and they should be in my tree if >> there are. > > It applies on top of this patch: > > From 67869fb9fdfa04503b250d59e086c15f1698aea0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 Ah I see. It doesn't make sense to mention shas in your own tree in commit messages for patches you send, as they will not be valid unless your tree is actually pulled from. And since this patch is not in any tree, and at least I didn't agree with it, then you should post your updated fixed patch instead of sending a patch against a broken patch. -- Jens Axboe