Re: [PATCH V9 2/3] audit: implement audit by executable

[Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>]

On Friday, August 07, 2015 02:25:14 AM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/08/06, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> > Merged, although some more minor whitespace tweaks were necessary for
> > checkpatch.  On a related note, if you're not running
> > ./scripts/checlpatch.pl on your patches before sending them out, I would
> > recommend it.  It isn't perfect, but it can catch some silly things that
> > we all do from time to time.
>
> No excuses...  I have been running it pretty regularly and got lazy and
> distracted with patch revisions.  I can't say I agree with the no space
> before closing round parenthesis due to legibility, but will comply.

Okay, glad to hear you run it regularly when submitting patches.

I agree that there are some things I might change about the kernel's style 
choices, but I think it is more important that we remain consistent with the 
kernel as a whole.  I really like tools that enforce things like this, even if 
I don't agree 100% with the results.
 
> > Also, one last thing.  It is pretty late in the -rcX cycle to merge these
> > two patches, but considering that we've been talking about these for a
> > while, I'm reasonably okay merging them.  In the future, if it isn't in
> > audit#next by the time -rc5 is released, it isn't going to make the merge
> > window.
> 
> I've been quite aware of that looming merge window...  This feature has
> been iterating for a while, so there are no big surprises.  I was aiming
> for earlier.  :)

Well, I think it is a little early to say there are no big surprises, we won't 
know that for a few more weeks, but if we make it to -rc3/4 without any 
problems I'll breathe a bit easier ;)

-- 
paul moore
security @ redhat