From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753614AbZHTClq (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:41:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753174AbZHTClp (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:41:45 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:31528 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752516AbZHTClo (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:41:44 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=VALvbZ5grE/Lir6zzSWFJLux0SWUlU00EeeGPUXCUiM+hHx7VtLzKCePpw12A73ma 2NijQKHA5LOXE0PnK3w0w== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A8CB62F.8030504@cn.fujitsu.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> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:41:41 -0700 Message-ID: <6599ad830908191941x6ee47d58x295c29f80f8c624c@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Revert commit 8827c288feb7810185aa7c2e37537202fc709869 From: Paul Menage To: Li Zefan Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, bblum@andrew.cmu.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Paul