On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:46:05 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:13:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:37:01 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I don't care strongly enough to cause a respin of half the series, and > > > > it's not your problem that I waited until the last revision went into > > > > mmots to review and comment. But if you agreed to a revert, would you > > > > consider tacking on a revert patch at the end of the series? > > > > > > > > > > In this case, I'm going to ask the other people on the cc for a > > > tie-breaker. If someone else prefers the old names then I'm happy for > > > your patch to be applied on top with my ack instead of respinning the > > > whole series. > > > > > > Anyone for a tie breaker? > > > > I am aggressively undecided. I guess as it's a bit of a 51/49 > > situation, the "stay with what people are familiar with" benefit tips the > > balance toward the legacy names? > > > > I still can't decide. It's currently still a draw in terms of naming. If > you're worried, use the old naming. It wouldn't be the first time I > thought a name was odd. Well I dunno. We can leave the series as-is for now and we can merge the rename-it-back patch sometime during the next -rc cycle if we find that people are running around in confusion and tumbling out of high windows. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>