From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gao feng Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 10/48] Audit: change type of audit_ever_enabled to bool Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 13:24:24 +0800 Message-ID: <5189E188.6060801@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1367893269-9308-1-git-send-email-gaofeng@cn.fujitsu.com> <1367893269-9308-11-git-send-email-gaofeng@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130508020626.GD24627@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130508020626.GD24627-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Helsley Cc: netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, serge.hallyn-GeWIH/nMZzLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, eparis-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-audit-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, sgrubb-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org, ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On 05/08/2013 10:06 AM, Matt Helsley wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:20:31AM +0800, Gao feng wrote: >> It's better to define audit_ever_enabled as bool >> >> Signed-off-by: Gao feng >> --- >> kernel/audit.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c >> index 4595a9e..1138ff5 100644 >> --- a/kernel/audit.c >> +++ b/kernel/audit.c >> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ static int audit_initialized; >> #define AUDIT_OFF 0 >> #define AUDIT_ON 1 >> #define AUDIT_LOCKED 2 >> -int audit_ever_enabled; >> +bool audit_ever_enabled; > > I think you're better off placing this at the beginning of the series > and submitting it separately since it's only incidentally related to > this RFC. > Thanks for your suggestion. will send these cleanup patches separately. Thanks Gao