From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932327AbaLAUeu (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 15:34:50 -0500 Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com ([209.85.218.48]:37668 "EHLO mail-oi0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753890AbaLAUeq (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 15:34:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20141125194319.GA9328@www.outflux.net> <20141127084614.209450b9@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 12:34:46 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: usTTyG5VG_6tSoyP0IiDC3-BpoU Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PULL] seccomp update (next) From: Kees Cook To: James Morris Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-security-module , LKML , Pranith Kumar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2014, Kees Cook wrote: > >> > That would be because your tree is based on v3.17 and Kees' is based on >> > v3.18-rc6 ... >> >> James, I can base on whatever you like. I can do v3.17, or even >> against your security-next. It seems everyone uses something >> different. :) > > It's best to track my next branch as your upstream. It'll trigger collisions with what's the x86 -next from luto's changes. Should I just let Stephen sort that out? -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security