[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq1k1zb8b9n.fsf@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:42:12 -0400
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
Cc: "martin.petersen\@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"keescook\@chromium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-scsi\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"varun\@chelsio.com" <varun@...lsio.com>,
"target-devel\@vger.kernel.org" <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jiangyilism\@gmail.com" <jiangyilism@...il.com>,
"nab\@linux-iscsi.org" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] target/iscsi: Convert timers to use timer_setup()
Bart,
> The tree I tested indeed includes that rebased patch. BTW, since the code
> touched by that patch has not been modified in the past months, the rebased
> patch is identical to the patch I posted in May 2017.
OK. Just checking.
So what's the plan here? Should both patches be routed through the timer
tree?
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
Powered by blists - more mailing lists