Hi Greg,
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 4:55 PM Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 03:01:11PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 2:25 PM Chris Brandt <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 26, 2018, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > Thanks for your series!
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately Greg has already applied your v1 (and my fix for a
> > > > use-after-free), so either these have to be reverted first, or you have
> > > > to
> > > > rebase against tty-next.
> > >
> > > I assume you would prefer the newer implementation I did.
> > >
> > > In your opinion, which one would be better (revert or rebase)?
> >
> > [looking at the incremental differences]
> >
> > I think the easiest for Greg is to rebase, and send 3 patches:
>
> Greg does not rebase his public trees. Nor should anyone else :)
I know ;-)
FTR, the sentence above was addressed to Chris:
"I think the easiest for Greg(,) is (for you) to rebase (your tree), and send 3
patches".
Which is what Chris did in the mean time.
Apparently I didn't formulate it well. Will try to do better in the future.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
