From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:58:29 +0000 Message-ID: <13157.1228935509@redhat.com> References: <20081209175726.682d77cd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:34859 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754414AbYLJS7V (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:59:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081209175726.682d77cd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Al Viro , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, James Morris , Eric Paris , Serge Hallyn 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