Re: [PATCH v12 0/9] LSM: Multiple concurrent LSMs

[Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>]

On 1/7/2013 7:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Casey,
>
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:01:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> Let me ask Andrew's question:  Why do you want to do this (what is the
>> use case)?  What does this gain us?
>>
>> Also, you should use unique subjects for each of the patches in the
>> series.
> You probably also want to think a bit harder about the order of the
> patches - you should introduce new APIs before you use them and remove
> calls to functions before you remove the functions.
>
The unfortunate reality is that I couldn't find a good way to stage the
changes. It's a wonking big set of infrastructure change. I could introduce
the security blob abstraction separately but that is a fraction of the
change. If it would have gone through mail filters as a single patch I'd
have sent it that way.

I can spend time on patch presentation, and will if necessary. As it is,
I can start getting substantive commentary from beyond the LSM crowd, who
have already been extremely cooperative and often critical.