diff for duplicates of <1526647996.3632.164.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 4a57f80..e2ecee9 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -15,9 +15,9 @@ On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 07:49 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
 > 
 > I just printk'd it again. current->audit_context is NULL in this case.
 
-The builtin policy rules are loaded at __init.  Subsequently a custom
+The builtin policy rules are loaded at __init.  Subsequently a custom
 policy can replace the builtin policy rules by writing to the
-securityfs file.  Is the audit_context NULL in both cases?
+securityfs file.  Is the audit_context NULL in both cases?
 
 
 
@@ -37,8 +37,8 @@ securityfs file.  Is the audit_context NULL in both cases?
 > > current->audit_context.
 
 This sounds right, other than "type=INTEGRITY_RULE" (1805) for
-ima_audit_measurement().  Could we rename type=1805 to be
-INTEGRITY_AUDIT or INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT?  The new type=1806 audit
+ima_audit_measurement().  Could we rename type=1805 to be
+INTEGRITY_AUDIT or INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT?  The new type=1806 audit
 message could be named INTEGRITY_RULE or, if that would be confusing,
 INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE.
 
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE.
 > The justification for the change is that the INTEGRITY_RULE, as produced 
 > by ima_parse_rule(), is broken.
 
-Post which series?  The IMA namespacing patch set?  This change should
+Post which series?  The IMA namespacing patch set?  This change should
 be upstreamed independently of IMA namespacing.
 
 Mimi
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 3069618..1be84ef 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -64,9 +64,9 @@
   "> \n",
   "> I just printk'd it again. current->audit_context is NULL in this case.\n",
   "\n",
-  "The builtin policy rules are loaded at __init. \302\240Subsequently a custom\n",
+  "The builtin policy rules are loaded at __init.  Subsequently a custom\n",
   "policy can replace the builtin policy rules by writing to the\n",
-  "securityfs file. \302\240Is the audit_context NULL in both cases?\n",
+  "securityfs file.  Is the audit_context NULL in both cases?\n",
   "\n",
   "\n",
   "\n",
@@ -86,8 +86,8 @@
   "> > current->audit_context.\n",
   "\n",
   "This sounds right, other than \"type=INTEGRITY_RULE\" (1805) for\n",
-  "ima_audit_measurement(). \302\240Could we rename type=1805 to be\n",
-  "INTEGRITY_AUDIT or INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT? \302\240The new type=1806 audit\n",
+  "ima_audit_measurement().  Could we rename type=1805 to be\n",
+  "INTEGRITY_AUDIT or INTEGRITY_IMA_AUDIT?  The new type=1806 audit\n",
   "message could be named INTEGRITY_RULE or, if that would be confusing,\n",
   "INTEGRITY_POLICY_RULE.\n",
   "\n",
@@ -99,10 +99,10 @@
   "> The justification for the change is that the INTEGRITY_RULE, as produced \n",
   "> by ima_parse_rule(), is broken.\n",
   "\n",
-  "Post which series? \302\240The IMA namespacing patch set? \302\240This change should\n",
+  "Post which series?  The IMA namespacing patch set?  This change should\n",
   "be upstreamed independently of IMA namespacing.\n",
   "\n",
   "Mimi"
 ]
 
-81e591d025c623a6c38c5cf3a7ac9327377c50b377d1ea9daedb60607cae0a7a
+e6ffc91cb34a45fb95dd59474a5de537c5f3309be00b160af560fb314b9892c1
