On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Robert Love <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 21:24 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: >> This is the second version, with a fault in the previous version fixed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <[email protected]> >> --- >> > > This patch fails to apply on top of your other patch that adds a > exchange cache. I have fixed it locally and will add the fixed patch to > fcoe-next. You also omitted any patch description in this patch other > than it being the second version.
The related patches were prepared without consideration of each other, and it is my fault. > > Can you please add more verbose descriptions to your patches. The best > advice given to me was to have a problem statement, a statement on what > the solution is and then any technical details. I realize that some of I will try as hard as I can for better patch, thanks. //Hillf > your patches are very straight-forward and don't require that degree of > detail, but some have been a bit more involved and "seems like there is > a problem" doesn't give much context before looking at the changes > themselves. It would help me when reviewing your changes. > > Thanks, //Rob > > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
