Hi!
> > This "patch " is not a commit message, as it never shows up in git log.
> > Each of the follow-up patches does have details about the changes it makes.
>
> I think you should still describe the change - at least in summary.
>
> The patch I looked at didn't really...
> IIRC it still r
From: John Hubbard
> Sent: 05 December 2018 01:06
> On 12/4/18 9:10 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > From: john.hubb...@gmail.com
> >> Sent: 04 December 2018 00:17
> >>
> >> Summary: I'd like these two patches to go into the next convenient cycle.
> >> I *think* that means 4.21.
> >>
> >> Details
> >>
>
On 12/4/18 9:10 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: john.hubb...@gmail.com
>> Sent: 04 December 2018 00:17
>>
>> Summary: I'd like these two patches to go into the next convenient cycle.
>> I *think* that means 4.21.
>>
>> Details
>>
>> At the Linux Plumbers Conference, we talked about this approach [1
From: john.hubb...@gmail.com
> Sent: 04 December 2018 00:17
>
> Summary: I'd like these two patches to go into the next convenient cycle.
> I *think* that means 4.21.
>
> Details
>
> At the Linux Plumbers Conference, we talked about this approach [1], and
> the primary lingering concern was over
From: John Hubbard
Hi,
Summary: I'd like these two patches to go into the next convenient cycle.
I *think* that means 4.21.
Details
At the Linux Plumbers Conference, we talked about this approach [1], and
the primary lingering concern was over performance. Tom Talpey helped me
through a much m
5 matches
Mail list logo