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.