On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2012/10/15 16:18, David Coppa wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Gregor Best <g...@ring0.de> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:05:36AM +0200, David Coppa wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Gregor Best <g...@ring0.de> wrote:
> > >> > This patch simply halves the timeslice processes get until they are
> > >> > preempted. This patch is standalone and the rest of the patches does
> > >> > not
> > >> > depend on it, but I figured I'd throw it in anyway.
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Gregor Best
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Didn't get this patch. Is it me or the patch is missing?
> > >>
> > >
> > > The patch was the message my mail was in reply to. There's no Patch 2/5
> > > subject line because I forgot to change that after sending out Patch
> > > 1/5.
> >
> > Can you resend it, please?
> > I'm confused...
> >
> > TIA,
> > David
> >
>
> Best to send the diff, with the accompanying text, in the same email,
> and make sure they still all apply, I tried testing some of these but
> didn't manage to get them to apply (either some conflicting change,
> or they were in the wrong order and stacked up on top of each other
> or something).
This is important. A diff should apply without effort in current.
Also, a step by step approach is likely to work better: one diff at a
time, with explanation, own tets result and/or requets for tests. That
will enable us to discuss the merits of it while everybody knows which
diff we are talking about.
-Otto
