From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753726Ab0FIFzX (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2010 01:55:23 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:39436 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751407Ab0FIFzW (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2010 01:55:22 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=uFtD5wpZngclNHiSc12ZP/YcLocROX0CPsyYO7GJmjv6JovHWuzC9JEBXPIS5KGGtU RueZMhi0c1rFDwfPHxR0URaS/WA+0CjYtbzuujqLKKbiW7+lsLI91FsI/RYRNGhF91oe e95MA4EwEmtcy28tZTRwLjtnEXL0t29m3Ixeo= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20100521211452.659982351@quilx.com> <20100521211537.530913777@quilx.com> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:55:18 +0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8h82HPvbMqcZ4HfTAB5H2uzqD18 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 01/14] slab: Introduce a constant for a unspecified node. From: Pekka Enberg To: David Rientjes Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Ingo Molnar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi David, (I'm LKML and Ingo to CC.) On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote: >> > An incremental patch in this case would change everything that the >> > original patch did, so it'd probably be best to simply revert and queue >> > the updated version. >> >> If I revert it, we end up with two commits instead of one. And I >> really prefer not to *rebase* a topic branch even though it might be >> doable for a small tree like slab.git. On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:35 AM, David Rientjes wrote: > I commented on improvements for three of the five patches you've added as > slub cleanups and Christoph has shown an interest in proposing them again > (perhaps seperating patches 1-5 out as a seperate set of cleanups?), so > it's probably cleaner to just reset and reapply with the revisions. As I said, we can probably get away with that in slab.git because we're so small but that doesn't work in general. If we ignore the fact how painful the actual rebase operation is (there's a 'sleb/core' branch that shares the commits), I don't think the revised history is 'cleaner' by any means. The current patches are known to be good (I've tested them) but if I just replace them, all the testing effort was basically wasted. So if I need to do a git-bisect, for example, I didn't benefit one bit from testing the original patches. The other issue is patch metadata. If I just nuke the existing patches, I'm also could be dropping important stuff like Tested-by or Reported-by tags. Yes, I realize that in this particular case, there's none but the approach works only as long as you remember exactly what you merged. There are probably other benefits for larger trees but those two are enough for me to keep my published branches append-only. On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:35 AM, David Rientjes wrote: > Let me know if my suggested changes should be add-on patches to > Christoph's first five and I'll come up with a three patch series to do > just that. Yes, I really would prefer incremental patches on top of the 'slub/cleanups' branch. Pekka