From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: linux-next: the selinux tree needs cleaning up Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:03:08 -0400 Message-ID: <32647147.KmAPzBrbMT@sifl> References: <20140618084046.1bce12cc@canb.auug.org.au> <20140620085931.6427678d@canb.auug.org.au> <1474416.aEfMv8Ny53@sifl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mail-qc0-f169.google.com ([209.85.216.169]:54621 "EHLO mail-qc0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753450AbaFXSDM (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:03:12 -0400 Received: by mail-qc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c9so647765qcz.14 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:03:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1474416.aEfMv8Ny53@sifl> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" On Friday, June 20, 2014 12:06:28 PM Paul Moore wrote: {big snip} > Stephen, assuming for a moment that I created a fresh branch, based against > 3.15, and then added the SELinux patches for 3.16 (basically the few new > patches that were in the ole #next branch) would that serve as a reasonable > basis for a new SELinux #next branch? Around the -rc5/6/7 timeframe I would > send a pull request to James to pull from this next branch into the Linux > Security branch for 3.17. Once 3.16 is released, I would merge that into > this new #next branch and continue with the next round of patches. > > FYI, more or less, the above is the process we've settled upon for all of > the trees that get accumulated into the Linux Security tree. Hi Stephen, Does the above work for you in linux-next? I'd like to try and resolve this sooner rather than later and I imagine you feel the same ... -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com