linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] audit: remove duplicated include from audit.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRXK0vDTKDeVYc4n5nP32Sx1=+c6eFp+_d_csT1eBvFGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:14:17 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     yuehaibing@...wei.com
Cc:     Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-audit@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] audit: remove duplicated include from audit.c

On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:33 PM YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com> wrote:
> On 2018/12/14 7:42, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 1:25 AM YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com> wrote:
> >> Remove duplicated include.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >>  kernel/audit.c | 1 -
> >>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/audit.c b/kernel/audit.c
> >> index a0a4544..632d360 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/audit.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/audit.c
> >> @@ -60,7 +60,6 @@
> >>  #include <linux/mutex.h>
> >>  #include <linux/gfp.h>
> >>  #include <linux/pid.h>
> >> -#include <linux/slab.h>
> >
> > As discussed previously, I don't want to remove header files whose
> > declarations are used in the source file.  While it may be true that
> > slab.h is included in one of the previously included header files, I
> > like leaving it as an explicit include to help document the dependency
> > and protect us from changes in the other header files.
>
> The slab.h is included twice in audit.c , It like this:

Yes, you're right - my apologies.  I mistakenly thought this was a
patch similar to the ones you sent earlier and were rejected; I should
have looked closer at this patch.

Normally I wouldn't merge non-critical stuff at this stage of the
development window, but since this is such a trivial patch, and easily
verified, I'm going to go ahead and merge this into audit/next.

Thank you.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com