On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 2:03 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'd prefer that approach.
The "that approach" is a bit ambiguous here, particularly considering
how you quoted things.
But I think from the context you meant "keep them as two separate
series, even if the second undoes part of the first and does it
differently".
And that's fine. Even if it's maybe a bit odd to introduce that
locking that then goes away, I can't argue with "the first series was
already reviewed and has gone through a fair amount of testing".
Linus
