On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:44:56AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:

On 15.09.2010 [12:37:58 -0600], Grant Likely wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Without this change drivers, such as ibmvscsi, fail to load with the
previous change.

Shouldn't this patch be ordered before the previous change then to
preserve bisectability?

You are probably right. I wasn't sure if I should fold it in or keep it
separate. I should have changed the order, though. Sorry about that!

It's such a small patch I would just fold it in.

quoted

Also, patch descriptions should be explicit about what the "previous
change" refers to.  Once this is committed, git log may very well
insert other changes from other branches between this commit and
whatever "previous change" refers to.

Yep -- what's the best way to make the reference? By subject from the
patch? Obviously I don't have the SHA1 with which the commit will go
upstream.

By name should be good.  As long as a reader doesn't need background
information from your head to figure out why the change was made then
it should be okay.

g.