On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Daniel Jurgens <dani...@mellanox.com> wrote: > On 5/19/2017 7:49 AM, Dan Jurgens wrote: >> From: Daniel Jurgens <dani...@mellanox.com> >> >> Note on v7, it applies cleanly on Paul Moores' tree. 'git am' fails to >> apply patch 0002* to Dougs' tree, but 'patch' applies it without rejects. >> There's a new file that needs to be added before resolving the git am, >> drivers/infiniband/core/security.c > > There's actually a trivial merge conflict in drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs.c > that doesn't cause patch to create a reject file, in the function create_qp a > my patch adds a "goto err_destroy;". In Dougs' tree it needs to be changed > to "goto err_cb".
Thanks for the rebase Daniel. Aside from the small problems with LSM hook init code that I already mentioned it looks good to me. Considering that we got an ACK from the IB folks on v6 of your patchset I went ahead and merged it into the selinux/next tree. I do reserve the right to yank it out before the next merge window if we discover any problems with the userspace, policy, or tests, but I think those are moving along nicely at the moment. Doug, and other IB folks, can I get an explicit ACK on this rebased patchset from Daniel? I don't like sending cross-subsystem changes this large upstream without the associated ACKs. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
