From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:31:38 +0000 Message-ID: <20081211063138.GP28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1228935701.3524.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081209175726.682d77cd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <13157.1228935509@redhat.com> <13530.1228937583@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:39995 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750990AbYLKGbt (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:31:49 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13530.1228937583@redhat.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Howells Cc: Eric Paris , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, James Morris , Serge Hallyn On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 07:33:03PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > Eric Paris 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. It's already done. Everything that used to be in for-linus except tty_audit.c one went into mainline; tty_audit got rediffed and sent to James; for-linus..for-next had several Eric's patches that were in security tree (and thus are dropped from audit one - I couldn't care less which tree are they merged from as long as they get into the mainline) and an s390 patch that got sent off to linux-s390@vger and would be better off going via the s390 tree anyway. So at this point everything in that branch is taken care of. I do have several more in a private queue, but those will need review and testing before they go into -next.