From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] [NETFILTER]: Re-add missing checkentry calls Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:32:24 +0200 Message-ID: <48E8C1E8.5050309@trash.net> References: <67e1140a1db2e8aa9a4b6c80289039487c5445cb.1223149287.git.jengelh@medozas.de> <48E8B831.7020609@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:44842 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752015AbYJENcf (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2008 09:32:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Sunday 2008-10-05 08:50, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>> A previous commit ("Move Ebtables to use Xtables") unfortunately >>> removed match and target checks in Ebtables. Add it back. Some checks >>> go into xtables.c as part of consolidation work. >> Should I fold this one into the patch that removed them? >> > I am not always sure of your procedure. When you say "applied, thanks", > I have to assume it is already in a non-resettable git tree where > folding is impossible. I'm using stacked git to keep the history clean and bisectable. So changes are always possible, although doing this creates a few problems for people having cloned the tree, so I try to only do it when necessary. > Hence these patches are generally designed for > on-top-please. That makes sense of course, the question was more about whether it would make it easier for people doing bisections if I fold it. It applies cleanly on top of that change directly, so it wouldn't be a real problem.