From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] audit: use macros for unset inode and device values Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:37:43 -0400 Message-ID: <3232354.zp6VWdiO1X@sifl> References: <4dbec928da0490e35bee7388e698845e70caa9ed.1438805802.git.rgb@redhat.com> <6956887.xCl3Q82COv@sifl> <20150806034034.GA18741@madcap2.tricolour.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150806034034.GA18741@madcap2.tricolour.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Guy Briggs Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sgrubb@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 11:40:34 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > On 15/08/05, Paul Moore wrote: > > I suspect it was lost in the noise when I mentioned it on v4, but how > > about changing AUDIT_DEV_UNSET to "(dev_t)-1"? > > I saw your comment only after resubmitting. I'm fine either way. If it > is needed for uapi later it can be changed then. Is it easy to change > in your workflow, or should I resubmit? I know you routinely change the > patch description, but could not remember if you have actually changed > the patch itself... With the exception of trivial merge conflicts, in general I like to avoid changing the body of the patches when I apply them; there are always going to be exceptions, but when possible I try to avoid it. I consider tweaking the patch subject lines pretty trivial, especially in the last case where the subject line had become wrong/invalid due to changes in the patch itself. -- paul moore security @ redhat