[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150304051402.GC5158@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:14:03 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86: Use generic compat audit code
* Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> Use the generic compat syscall audit code instead of an x86 specific
> implementation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 5 +--
> arch/x86/ia32/Makefile | 3 --
> arch/x86/ia32/audit.c | 43 ---------------------
> arch/x86/include/asm/unistd32.h | 2 +
> arch/x86/kernel/Makefile | 2 -
> arch/x86/kernel/audit_64.c | 82 -----------------------------------------
> 6 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 134 deletions(-)
> delete mode 100644 arch/x86/ia32/audit.c
> create mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/unistd32.h
> delete mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/audit_64.c
Nice!
Because there are many types of conversions it would be nice if the
changelog included a declaration of some sorts about what this means
precisely: 'the two implementations were 100% identical', or 'the x86
one was buggy and we now switch to the correct generic one', or 'the
only difference between the two is X, Y and Z, which is not a
problem'?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists