Re: [PATCH 0/4] lightnvm: pblk: add support for chunk metadata on erase

[Javier Gonzalez <javier@cnexlabs.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2242 bytes --]

> On 4 Sep 2018, at 02.54, Matias Bjørling <mb@lightnvm.io> wrote:
> 
> On 09/03/2018 11:16 AM, Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>>> On 31 Aug 2018, at 15.57, Matias Bjørling <mb@lightnvm.io> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 08/31/2018 03:34 PM, Javier González wrote:
>>>> Matias,
>>>> This patchset implements support for retrieving chunk metadata when
>>>> submitting a reset/erase command. Patches 0 and 1 are small fixes that
>>>> can be directly merged into your patch:
>>>>      lightnvm: move bad block and chunk state logic to core
>>>> Also, note that these do not apply on top of your for-4.20/core due them
>>>> depending on patches that I sent before that you have not picked up yet.
>>>> You can see them though in for-4.20/pblk. I'll rebase as patches in the
>>>> list appear in your tree.
>>> 
>>> Thanks. It is really confusing when you guys maintains an implicit order and posts the patches separately. I will appreciate that patches that are related are posted together, such that I don't have to manually track what comes before another. That makes it less of a pain for me to keep track of and we can keep the reviews together.
>>> 
>>> This is the patches that I have in the pipeline (from before the e-mails from today):
>>> 
>>>  - This serie - Pending review
>>>  - Serie: pblk: support variable OOB size - Waiting on review from Igor
>>>  - lightnvm: pblk: recover open lines on 2.0 devices. Which doesn't apply due to the fixes to the pad distance patch.
>> Yes, I know and I apologize - we should have a better flow. What do you
>> say that for windows like this, where we have a number of patches that
>> have dependencies that we post them in meaningful patchsets and point to
>> a branch where they are ordered, like in a PR? Then we can rebase and
>> propagate changes properly?
> 
> I am with the patchset posted, that should have the order. I just
> wanted to mention it. One thing that would be good, if you do have
> patches you have upstream, feel free to push them in smaller
> increments, so we can pull them in as we go. Only a nitpick, it is
> obviously up to you guys how you want to do it :)
> 

Sure. If we can improve the workflow to make things easier for you, then
we should.


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]