From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Paris Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:01:41 -0500 Message-ID: <1228935701.3524.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20081209175726.682d77cd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <13157.1228935509@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:34923 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756863AbYLJTBw (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:01:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: <13157.1228935509@redhat.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Howells Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Al Viro , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, James Morris , Serge Hallyn On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:58 +0000, David Howells wrote: > Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Today's linux-next merge of the audit tree got a lot of conflict in > > include/linux/audit.h, kernel/auditsc.c, kernel/capability.c and > > security/commoncap.c against commits in the security-testing tree. > > > > Its not obvious how to resolve these, so can you, Eric, James and Dave > > have a conversation and see what you can come up with. Some will be > > easy, but there are several overlapping changes here. > > > > Looking harder, it looks like some (all?) of Eric's patches may already > > be in the security-testing tree ... > > > > I have dropped the audit tree for today. > > I've looked at all the conflicting bits, and I think you should take what's in > the security tree over what's in Al's tree for all of them. I think the > security tree already has everything that Al's tree applies in the conflicting > areas, it's just that the security tree has further changes parked on top. > > David I think David is right, all the conflicts should come from security-testing. Al does have other good stuff in his tree though, Al do you want to just kick all of my patches out? -Eric