From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752208Ab2FRNdy (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:33:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59129 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751042Ab2FRNdx (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:33:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:33:05 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Ingo Molnar Cc: baryluk@smp.if.uj.edu.pl, LKML , JBeulich@suse.com, zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86,nmi: Section header fixes Message-ID: <20120618133305.GU32472@redhat.com> References: <1339428809-29360-1-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> <20120618090731.GC28824@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120618090731.GC28824@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:07:31AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Don Zickus wrote: > > > An earlier attempt at a fix for the problem described in the second patch was > > committed to Ingo's tree. Later a smaller/cleaner patch was posted. This > > series just reverts the original patch and then applies the second patch. > > > > The second patch looks a lot cleaner this way instead of just provding the > > delta patch on top. > > > > Ingo, let me know if this is not what you want. > > Wouldnt this be nicer as a delta enhancement, instead of a > revert+fix-done-differently? > > That way we'd should that the original one was good as well, > it's just that this one is easier to maintain. Ok. I originally had a delta diff, but it looked ugly and hard to understand the new changes. That is why I did it this way. I'll send the delta enhancement and let you decide. Cheers, Don