From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the lblnet tree Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:58:10 -0500 Message-ID: <200812081758.10731.paul.moore@hp.com> References: <20081208190708.1d2c37ec.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <200812081441.12338.paul.moore@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from g4t0017.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.20]:46650 "EHLO g4t0017.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752181AbYLHW6p (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:58:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: James Morris , Casey Schaufler Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, David Howells On Monday 08 December 2008 4:16:24 pm James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Paul Moore wrote: > > James, is the security-testing tree rebased regularly or is > > suitable to back a tree against? > > No, it doesn't get rebased. Okay, experiment time. I think I managed to pull from all the right spots, merge everything appropriately and end up with a security/ directory that builds so I pushed it back out to the lblnet-2.6_next tree. I'm not quite sure the proper etiquette here but I had to fix Casey's patch a bit since it would apply cleanly; Casey if you could take a look I would appreciate it (it isn't exactly like what Stephen posted earlier but it is pretty darn close). > > If so, I can rebase the lblnet-2.6_next tree > > against security-testing to resolve the conflict ... > > Ok, and I can carry your patches in there if necessary. I would like to figure out to make this work as it is likely to happen again at some point in the future, but if I can't get it working quickly I may punt on it and ask you to pull in the patches. -- paul moore linux @ hp