Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.20

[Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>]

On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 20:40 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> mprotect-patch-for-use-by-slim.patch
> integrity-service-api-and-dummy-provider.patch
> integrity-service-api-and-dummy-provider-cleanup-use-of-configh.patch
> integrity-service-api-and-dummy-provider-compilation-warning-fix.patch
> slim-main-patch.patch
> slim-main-patch-socket_post_create-hook-return-code.patch
> slim-main-patch-misc-cleanups-requested-at-inclusion-time.patch
> slim-main-patch-handle-failure-to-register.patch
> slim-main-patch-fix-bug-with-mm_users-usage.patch
> slim-main-patch-security-slim-slm_mainc-make-2-functions-static.patch
> slim-secfs-patch.patch
> slim-secfs-patch-slim-correct-use-of-snprintf.patch
> slim-secfs-patch-cleanup-use-of-configh.patch
> slim-make-and-config-stuff.patch
> slim-make-and-config-stuff-makefile-fix.patch
> slim-debug-output.patch
> slim-fix-security-issue-with-the-task_post_setuid-hook.patch
> slim-secfs-inode-i_private-build-fix.patch
> slim-documentation.patch
> fdtable-make-fdarray-and-fdsets-equal-in-size-slim.patch
> 
>  Shall hold in -mm.

Why?  I haven't seen any evidence that prior review comments have been
addressed so far, and a fresh patch set would be beneficial anyway to
facilitate full review of the updated code and to allow them to fix
their patch descriptions as well (as they were wrong in some instances,
describing older versions of the code).

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency