Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the audit tree

2014-09-27 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Andy, On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:02:27 -0700 Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > I don't think that more cleanup is possible after all. > do_audit_syscall_entry may not need to pass the arch parameter to the > audit code, but it still needs it to choose the set of registers to > use. Yes, indeed, I did no

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the audit tree

2014-09-26 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in > arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c between commit 91397401bb50 ("ARCH: AUDIT: > audit_syscall_entry() should not require the arch") from the audit tree > and commit e0ffbaabc

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the audit tree

2014-09-26 Thread Richard Guy Briggs
On 14/09/24, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in > arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S between commit b4f0d3755c5e ("audit: x86: > drop arch from __audit_syscall_entry() interface") from the audit tree > and commit 1dcf74f6edfc ("x86_64, entry: U

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the audit tree

2014-09-24 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in >> arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c between commit 91397401bb50 ("ARCH: AUDIT: >> audit_syscall_entry() shoul

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the audit tree

2014-09-24 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in > arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c between commit 91397401bb50 ("ARCH: AUDIT: > audit_syscall_entry() should not require the arch") from the audit tree > and commit e0ffbaabc