From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757051AbWK1Wu4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:50:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757101AbWK1Wu4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:50:56 -0500 Received: from outbound0.mx.meer.net ([209.157.153.23]:3080 "EHLO outbound0.sv.meer.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757051AbWK1Wuz (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:50:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 -mm] fault-injection: safer defaults, trivial optimization, cleanup From: Don Mullis To: Andrew Morton Cc: lkml , Akinobu Mita In-Reply-To: <20061128133754.bad99ddb.akpm@osdl.org> References: <1164699866.2894.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061128133754.bad99ddb.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:50:45 -0800 Message-Id: <1164754245.2894.144.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 (2.6.3-1.fc5.5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 13:37 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > We'd prefer one-patch-per-concept, please. This all sounds like about > six patches. Understood. > We _could_ merge this patch as-is, but it means that when this stuff > finally hits mainline it would go in as a nice sequence of logical patches, > followed by a random thing which is splattered all over all the preceding > patches. Does this argue for a respin of the original patches, folding in content from this one, rather than splitting it into an additional six to be appended to the series?