Re: Module stacking next steps

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

On 4/30/2015 7:48 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 4/30/2015 4:20 AM, James Morris wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, John Johansen wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, James Morris wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
>>>>> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
>>>>> procedure would you like to follow?
>>>> What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as 
>>>> useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
>>>>
>>>> Any objections or concerns?
>>>>
>>> No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing
>>> this land.
>>>
>>> I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this
>>> explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...)
>> Ok, Casey, please send an updated final version for everyone to check.
> Are you planning to update security-next soon? I think that it will
> be easier for everyone if I base it on the 4.1-rc than the 4.0-rc.
> Alternatively, I could base it on 4.0. I can do any of 'em, but I'd
> hate to have to do it more often than I have to.

Whoops! I read mail addressed directly to me before I read what goes
just to lists. I see that security-next is updated. I will have the update
ready as quickly as possible. Thank you.