| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:11:24 +0800 From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bblum@...rew.cmu.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Revert commit 8827c288feb7810185aa7c2e37537202fc709869 Paul Menage wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Li Zefan<lizf@...fujitsu.com> 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists