31.03.2011 03:33, Andi Kleen wrote: >> Doh, so this 232/275 basically reverts that 180 and makes >> other change down the line, but keeps the subject intact. >> Especially useful that the two patches are so far away >> from each other (more than 50 patches in-between). >> Confusing :) >> >> So both are actually needed, apparently. > > Sorry about that -- i ended up grabbing those from .32 and since > there were multiple releases in sequence it ended up this way.
It's definitely not your fault -- second patch should be named differently (since it does something else) but it's not. > I can collapse the two patches. Just be careful they don't end in the same _file_. In the gregkh's stable-queue repository each patch is keept in a separate file named after the subject line, so that means just that - the same file. > Are the leftover hunks after that good? I remember original discussion when first patch has been posted (was fun to read the original code), but I missed second half of it. So I re-read it and found the second part now, all is ok with it and with the resulting two- patch solution, except of the possible "patch name" clash, which may only when organizing patches in a plain directory. Anyway, that's a good story I think, and the conclusion is - please name your patches correctly :) Thank you! /mjt _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
