From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:33:03 +0000
Message-ID: <13530.1228937583@redhat.com>
References: <1228935701.3524.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081209175726.682d77cd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <13157.1228935509@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:57448 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754795AbYLJTdY (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-next@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:33:24 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1228935701.3524.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-next.vger.kernel.org>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>

Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com> wrote:

> 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?

Maybe it's worth James taking Al's changes into his tree and resolving all the
conflicts in favour of what's in his tree.

David