From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752522AbZHTElH (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:41:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751416AbZHTElG (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:41:06 -0400 Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:51995 "EHLO e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751246AbZHTElG (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:41:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:40:59 -0700 From: Matt Helsley To: Paul Menage Cc: Li Zefan , bblum@andrew.cmu.edu, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Revert commit 8827c288feb7810185aa7c2e37537202fc709869 Message-ID: <20090820044059.GE29801@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20090818235059.22531.42618.stgit@menage.mtv.corp.google.com> <20090818235812.22531.76212.stgit@menage.mtv.corp.google.com> <4A8CB62F.8030504@cn.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830908191941x6ee47d58x295c29f80f8c624c@mail.gmail.com> <4A8CBEDC.6010709@cn.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830908192013p328a2256o8c807a160e25a9a3@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6599ad830908192013p328a2256o8c807a160e25a9a3@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 08:13:59PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Li Zefan wrote: > > > > As you said, the 2 patches differ just in using different var/func > > names, so rebasing shouldn't be hard but maybe a bit boring. > > > > Yes - it's a fair amount of work for no real gain. So this revert won't introduce a regression for any potential tests? Cheers, -Matt Helsley