[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:32:43 EDT, Paul Moore said: > >>For clarification, you mention that the code "looks good enough for >>-mm", are you basing that on the performance numbers only or have you >>had a chance to look at the patches too? > > The perf numbers, and a quick look-over the code. I'm suspecting if it's > already gotten comments on the netdev list, I'm unlikely to find anything else > major by looking it over (I never manage to find stuff doing a careful review, > it's always "WTF, let's take a quick eyeball and see if anything pops out").
Fair enough. > Another merge issue - has anybody managed to get this to "play nice" with > the already-in-mm1 SECMARK code? No, but I don't think anyone has tried yet. That's my next step (at this moment I'm trying to fix something I broke during the last round of comments) but I don't expect that to be any more of a problem them trying to reconcile the existing jumble of networking hooks. -- paul moore linux security @ hp -- redhat-lspp mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-lspp
