[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3w_3JKxW6kz-V9roxzf9RwbVgHaK8XjO5OOktVvZ_Sog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:29:00 +0000
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@...l.ru>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, yuchao0@...wei.com,
ceph-devel <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
"Linux F2FS DEV, Mailing List"
<linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>,
Linux Network Devel Mailing List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] audit: Use timespec64 to represent audit timestamps
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>> I have no problem merging this patch into audit/next for v4.12, would
>> you prefer me to do that so at least this patch is merged?
>
> This would be fine.
> But, I think whoever takes the last 2 deletion patches should also take them.
> I'm not sure how that part works out.
>
>> It would probably make life a small bit easier for us in the audit
>> world too as it would reduce the potential merge conflict. However,
>> that's a relatively small thing to worry about.
As Andrew has picked the remaining patches up into -mm, this will work
out fine: any patches picked up by the respective maintainers for v4.12
should arrive as git pull requests before the -mm patches get applied
at a later stage of the merge window.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists