[PATCH] x86/entry64: remove unused audit related macros

[PATCH] x86/entry64: remove unused audit related macros

[Alexander Kuleshov]

which are ocured in the 86a1c34a929f commit (x86_64 syscall audit
fast-path by Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>) and now they are
not used anymore.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@gmail.com>
---
 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 6 ------
 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
index ef766a3..4362f1c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
@@ -38,12 +38,6 @@
 #include <asm/export.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>
 
-/* Avoid __ASSEMBLER__'ifying <linux/audit.h> just for this.  */
-#include <linux/elf-em.h>
-#define AUDIT_ARCH_X86_64			(EM_X86_64|__AUDIT_ARCH_64BIT|__AUDIT_ARCH_LE)
-#define __AUDIT_ARCH_64BIT			0x80000000
-#define __AUDIT_ARCH_LE				0x40000000
-
 .code64
 .section .entry.text, "ax"
 
-- 
2.8.0.rc3.1353.gea9bdc0

Re: [PATCH] x86/entry64: remove unused audit related macros

[Borislav Petkov]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 12:10:32AM +0600, Alexander Kuleshov wrote:
> which are ocured in the 86a1c34a929f commit (x86_64 syscall audit
> fast-path by Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>) and now they are
> not used anymore.

I'd prefer it if you said which patch *removed* them and made those
defines unused again.

What would be even better is if your commit message explained *why* they
were removed in that patch and that because of <insert reason here> we
don't need them here anymore.

This should give people looking at your patch the warm and fuzzy feeling
they need in order to apply it. :-)

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.

Re: [PATCH] x86/entry64: remove unused audit related macros

[Alexander Kuleshov]

Hello Borislav,

On 10-23-16, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> I'd prefer it if you said which patch *removed* them and made those
> defines unused again.
> 
> What would be even better is if your commit message explained *why* they
> were removed in that patch and that because of <insert reason here> we
> don't need them here anymore.
> 
> This should give people looking at your patch the warm and fuzzy feeling
> they need in order to apply it. :-)

I will describe this in V2.

Thanks.