From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752387AbbE0VEG (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2015 17:04:06 -0400 Received: from mta01.ornl.gov ([128.219.177.14]:60699 "EHLO mta01.ornl.gov" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751486AbbE0VEC convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2015 17:04:02 -0400 X-SG: RELAYLIST X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,507,1427774400"; d="scan'208";a="103722631" From: "Simmons, James A." To: "'Dan Carpenter'" CC: James Simmons , "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Oleg Drokin , "HPDD-discuss@ml01.01.org" , "lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org" Subject: RE: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 5/6] staging:lustre: style cleanups for lib-socket.c Thread-Topic: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 5/6] staging:lustre: style cleanups for lib-socket.c Thread-Index: AQHQmJFU4LV56blK5k2hoaka9Dr8wZ2QT0ag Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 21:04:01 +0000 Message-ID: <2b6ea004c72c457aae6affe1a5d7e001@EXCHCS32.ornl.gov> References: <1432319552-10479-6-git-send-email-jsimmons@infradead.org> <20150525093737.GS4150@mwanda> <20150527152431.GS11588@mwanda> In-Reply-To: <20150527152431.GS11588@mwanda> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [128.219.12.132] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> > >> >Don't split string literals, it makes them hard to grep for. >> >> Will fix. The CWARN will go over 80 characters but from the recent emails that is more acceptable. >> If this is the only problem then this patch set it ready. > >Normally the right thing to do here would be to send a fixed >[patch 5/6 v2] using the --in-reply-to option so that it appears as a >reply to the original [patch 5/6]. Made a note of that for future reference. >> I have more patch series that are dependent >> on this first one. Should I push the other patch series with a note that it is dependent on the tcpip >> cleanup or wait until it is merged? Also how does one find out when the patch has been merged? > >You will get an email when these are merged. > >This is the only issue, I had. No one else has complained so that means >no one else has any objections. Greg hasn't merged it yet and he might >find a problem with it, but it seems like a straight forward patchset >so that's unlikely. Ugh. I was off by one for the number of patches so I need to send a new batch. >The only issue is that this patchset was sent in a confusing way. It >doesn't have a v2 tag and it was tacked on to the old thread. Greg >tends to not waste time being confused and just deletes the whole thread >when that happens. Forgot to change the patch tag number. I will send a new batch with v2 so it is a new thread.