From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753016AbZHTDMp (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:12:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752501AbZHTDMp (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:12:45 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:53479 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752469AbZHTDMo (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:12:44 -0400 Message-ID: <4A8CBEDC.6010709@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:11:24 +0800 From: Li Zefan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Menage CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, bblum@andrew.cmu.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Revert commit 8827c288feb7810185aa7c2e37537202fc709869 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> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830908191941x6ee47d58x295c29f80f8c624c@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Menage wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Li Zefan wrote: >> It's sure that reverting this commit makes things easier, but >> rebasing this patchset shouldn't be hard. And this doesn't >> sound a good reason to revert an innocent commit. >> > > The problem is that Ben's patch set starts with a patch that adds the > "procs" file, and then a patch that fixes the namespace bug, and he > and you used different names for variables/functions even though you > were doing essentially the same thing. So rebasing would involve > pretty much entirely rewriting the first patch and ditching the second > - not just a case of fixing up some merge conflicts. > Here we reintroduce the bug, and re-fix it with the essentially same solution, this lazy way doesn't sound right to me. 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.