[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhR=x7qB3gmQg+GPYLnXtGU88S3KCiZGjRYtDKSJHp4P1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 17:04:01 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the apparmor tree with the security tree
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 4:46 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 12:52:50 -0400 Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 5:09 PM John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > is part of the Three basic syscalls series, the plan is still to have that
> > > series bake in next for a full cycle?
> >
> > Yes, that's still the plan. Once v6.7-rc1 is out I'll rebase the LSM
> > syscall patches and I expect the vast majority of these conflicts to
> > disappear, although I'm sure we'll pick up some new ones with the rest
> > of the v6.7-rcX cycle :)
>
> These patches should not be in linux-next until after v6.7-rc1.
What if we wanted additional testing beyond the typical? Do you not
support that?
--
paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists