From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752061AbZHTEtz (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:49:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751416AbZHTEty (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:49:54 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:28100 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751409AbZHTEty (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:49:54 -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=XiI+Q5QxrFPgJQMth2QYjZI+9UN0wZc8ZSp9D2k63NQJvMUNMLQlRcQKK0HjZbSFT 0uVHMsORkh+PZ0XnPi1kg== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <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> <20090820044059.GE29801@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:49:51 -0700 Message-ID: <6599ad830908192149o4dc4d4a2p32fbce972a949d0e@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Revert commit 8827c288feb7810185aa7c2e37537202fc709869 From: Paul Menage To: Matt Helsley Cc: Li Zefan , bblum@andrew.cmu.edu, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 9:40 PM, Matt Helsley wrote: > 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? > Yes, there would be a two-commit window where a hypothetical test that tests for concurrent opens of "tasks" files from different pid namespaces would fail. If that was really a big deal, then it wouldn't be too hard to fold the first three patches in this series down into one, but that would reduce the clarity of the commit history. Paul