On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:44:00AM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 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 :)
Apologies, my fault--thanks for sorting it out. --b. _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
