From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755463AbYLVP2x (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:28:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754833AbYLVP2d (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:28:33 -0500 Received: from chilli.pcug.org.au ([203.10.76.44]:36410 "EHLO smtps.tip.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754758AbYLVP2b (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:28:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 02:28:22 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: James Bottomley Cc: Boaz Harrosh , Jaswinder Singh , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse Subject: Re: Firmware patches for SCSI Message-Id: <20081223022822.0dd8aa66.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <1229958063.3345.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <3f9a31f40812191153n636888f4i549409453266d58c@mail.gmail.com> <1229718543.18778.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3f9a31f40812191241q40dafdb0lfd2f4487f2870e2@mail.gmail.com> <1229720031.18778.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081222171904.b588da94.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <494F4656.6010109@panasas.com> <1229958063.3345.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Tue__23_Dec_2008_02_28_22_+1100_SUCfyRkGPaXS.Auq" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Signature=_Tue__23_Dec_2008_02_28_22_+1100_SUCfyRkGPaXS.Auq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:01:03 -0600 James Bottomley wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 09:48 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > >=20 > > I think what James meant is to rebase over linux-next when cutting the > > patches in order to send them to the different maintainers over email. > > In that case linux-next is perfect because you are sure none of the > > patches will conflict with any maintainer and you do that all in one > > place. Since you are not merging then linux-next volatility does not > > matter. Unless there are conflict resolutions in the linux-next tree (and there are a few) that involve the files in the generated patch. In that case the patch may not apply cleanly to any of the individual trees. > The point is that it's hard to work out where all the maintainer trees Hopefully you can glean that information from the MAINTAINERS file or the Trees file in any linux-next tree (available via git-web if not from the tree itself). Just pointing out the possible problems ... --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ --Signature=_Tue__23_Dec_2008_02_28_22_+1100_SUCfyRkGPaXS.Auq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAklPshYACgkQjjKRsyhoI8z39wCeNBNhgeK3yjr5ZqRdzwOXUUpB PzYAn23j+Hn2gVj1lJ5ETk9facpBlsRQ =HUDa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Tue__23_Dec_2008_02_28_22_+1100_SUCfyRkGPaXS.Auq--