[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2012df5e-62ec-06fb-9f4d-e27dde184a3f@csgroup.eu>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 13:41:09 +0200
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree with the powerpc tree
Le 27/10/2021 à 13:29, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:55 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
>>> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the audit tree got conflicts in:
>>>>
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/audit.c
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/compat_audit.c
>>>>
>>>> between commit:
>>>>
>>>> 566af8cda399 ("powerpc/audit: Convert powerpc to AUDIT_ARCH_COMPAT_GENERIC")
>>>>
>>>> from the powerpc tree and commits:
>>>>
>>>> 42f355ef59a2 ("audit: replace magic audit syscall class numbers with macros")
>>>> 1c30e3af8a79 ("audit: add support for the openat2 syscall")
>>>>
>>>> from the audit tree.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> I guess this is OK, unless the audit folks disagree. I could revert the
>>> powerpc commit and try it again later.
>>>
>>> If I don't hear anything I'll leave it as-is.
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Last I recall from the powerpc/audit thread there were still some
>> issues with audit working properly in your testing, has that been
>> resolved?
>
> No.
>
> There's one test failure both before and after the conversion to use the
> generic code.
>
>> If nothing else, -rc7 seems a bit late for this to hit -next for me to
>> feel comfortable about this.
>
> OK. I'll revert the patch in my tree.
>
But it's been in the pipe since end of August and no one reported any
issue other issue than the pre-existing one, so what's the new issue
that prevents us to merge it two monthes later, and how do we walk
forward then ?
Thanks
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists