[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54D84798-42F5-44E9-BE99-CBD9A7DF6E51@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:11:07 +0000
From: "Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
"<devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH v2 0/6] staging: lustre: update modinfo
data
On Feb 26, 2016, at 1:03 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 08:07:06PM -0500, James Simmons wrote:
>> The module information for Lustre is stale or in some cases
>> completely missing. This collection of patches brings the
>> modinfo up to date as well as filling in any missing information.
>> This patch set has been redone to rebase it on Oleg's latest
>> patch set to avoid collisons in merging.
>>
>> Andreas Dilger (4):
>> staging: lustre: add missing MODULE_AUTHOR for LNet selftest module
>> staging: lustre: update the MODULE_DESCRIPTION for all lustre modules
>> staging: lustre: make module_init/exit naming consistent
>> staging: lustre: update comment for lnet_lib_init/exit
>>
>> James Simmons (2):
>> staging: lustre: move module info to end of libcfs module.c file
>> staging: lustre: update the MODULE_VERSION for all lustre modules
>
> What changed to need a v2 of this series?
>
> Please ALWAYS say what the difference is, don't expect us to "just
> know".
>
> Please send a v3 of this, describing the changes, in the correct format,
> in each patch. You know better than this…
I think it says above that the rebase was done on top of my patchset
to resolve the conflict that arose?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists