From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756724AbaFYKwD (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:52:03 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:50373 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756209AbaFYKwA (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:52:00 -0400 Message-ID: <53AAA9BF.4090205@oracle.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:51:43 +1000 From: James Morris User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Rothwell CC: Paul Moore , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: linux-next: the selinux tree needs cleaning up References: <20140618084046.1bce12cc@canb.auug.org.au> <20140620085931.6427678d@canb.auug.org.au> <1474416.aEfMv8Ny53@sifl> <32647147.KmAPzBrbMT@sifl> <20140625095928.3161ebe1@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20140625095928.3161ebe1@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/25/2014 09:59 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:03:08 -0400 Paul Moore wrote: >> >> On Friday, June 20, 2014 12:06:28 PM Paul Moore wrote: >> >> {big snip} >> >>> Stephen, assuming for a moment that I created a fresh branch, based against >>> 3.15, and then added the SELinux patches for 3.16 (basically the few new >>> patches that were in the ole #next branch) would that serve as a reasonable >>> basis for a new SELinux #next branch? Around the -rc5/6/7 timeframe I would >>> send a pull request to James to pull from this next branch into the Linux >>> Security branch for 3.17. Once 3.16 is released, I would merge that into >>> this new #next branch and continue with the next round of patches. >>> >>> FYI, more or less, the above is the process we've settled upon for all of >>> the trees that get accumulated into the Linux Security tree. >> >> Does the above work for you in linux-next? I'd like to try and resolve this >> sooner rather than later and I imagine you feel the same ... > > Well, I see that James has pulled your tree, so past problems are now > moot. He has some duplicate commits in his tree now and Linus will get > a few more when he next pulls James' tree. We just need to avoid this > going forward. And given that James or Serge will, from now on, *pull* > your tree (not cherry-pick from it), things should be fine. > I haven't pulled in Paul's tree, I merged with the latest Linus release.