On 12/2/20 1:14 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:

On Wed, Dec 02 2020 at 12:03am -0500,
Mike Snitzer [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

What you've done here is fairly chaotic/disruptive:
1) you emailed a patch out that isn't needed or ideal, I dealt already
   staged a DM fix in linux-next for 5.10-rcX, see:
   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-5.10-rcX&id=f28de262ddf09b635095bdeaf0e07ff507b3c41b
2) you replied to your patch and started referencing snippets of this
   other patch's header (now staged for 5.10-rcX via Jens' block tree):
   https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=block-5.10&id=7e7986f9d3ba69a7375a41080a1f8c8012cb0923
   - why not reply to _that_ patch in response something stated in it?

I now see you did reply to the original v2 patch:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2020-December/msg00006.html

but you changed the Subject to have a "dm" prefix for some reason.

In my original purpose, this is a new patch, 'dm: XXXXXXXX'. This patch
should coexist with your patch 'block: XXXXXX'.

Can I say that it's totally a mistake ;)

Strange but OK.. though it got really weird when you cut-and-paste your
other DM patch in reply at the bottom of your email.  If you find
yourself cross referencing emails and cutting and pasting like that, you
probably shouldn't.  Makes it chaotic for others to follow along.

Thanks,
Mike

-- 
Thanks,
Jeffle