From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [net-next 05/15] i40e: add a comment on barrier and fix panic on reset Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:21:57 +0000 Message-ID: <1389302517.2025.54.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> References: <1389271944-26227-6-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <52CEB538.50505@cogentembedded.com> <20140109091735.00002cf0@unknown> <20140109.151224.1539252523028219271.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , , , , , To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from webmail.solarflare.com ([12.187.104.25]:26845 "EHLO webmail.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756546AbaAIVWC (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:22:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20140109.151224.1539252523028219271.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 15:12 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Greg Rose > Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:17:35 -0800 > > > Yes, it's apparent that two different internal patches were compressed > > together. If its unacceptable to do this then I'll speak to Jeff about > > splitting them. > > I won't reject the entire pull request on account of this, but please > don't do this in the future. I don't understand this. You don't want to see patches that are known to introduce regressions, and you expect people to squash together known buggy patches with their subsequent fix-ups before submitting. So, if a Change-Id is supposed to refer back to an 'original' version of a patch/commit, shouldn't there sometimes be more than one of them in the version that goes upstream? You do something very similar yourself sometimes, with upstream references in stable backports. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.