linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] Revert commit 8827c288feb7810185aa7c2e37537202fc709869

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6599ad830908191941x6ee47d58x295c29f80f8c624c@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:41:41 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.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

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.

Paul
--
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/