[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-fsdevel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH v2] hfs,hfsplus: cache pages correctly between bnode_create and bnode_free
From:       Hin-Tak Leung <hintak.leung () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-06-30 15:40:40
Message-ID: CAJMB+NiUuDTAvPMAKn6rAxJB5NRAKDWOjXWMBigG4vBkBe94ew () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 28 June 2015 at 19:52, Sergei Antonov <saproj@gmail.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> If I fix something else in hfsplus in the future, will you again
> submit a combined hfsplus+hfs patch? I would prefer separation. Hoped
> to receive your "Tested-by:" for my "hfsplus: release bnode pages
> after use, not before" and then submit a V2 of it with a longer
> description.

Possibly yes, if the patch description is clearly unsatisfactory and
deemed incomprehensible, and you have not re-submitted a v2
within a reasonable time. I already explained why I re-submitted
with a different patch description in the first of 3 below:

[PATCH 0/2] two patches about B-tree corruptions in hfs and hfsplus
[PATCH v2] hfs,hfsplus: cache pages correctly between bnode_create and
[PATCH] hfs: fix B-tree corruption after insertion at position 0

Please just re-submit v2 yourself if more than a few people thinks your patch
description is unsatisfactory, instead of waiting for somebody else to
do it for you;
and also please just say "thank you", when others are willing spend their
valuable time to look at and check and verify what you do.

I would not be willing to put my name down with a Test-By: or Signed-of:
on your original patch as it was.

Hin-Tak
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]