Re: [PULL] seccomp update (next)
From: Kees Cook
Date: Mon Dec 01 2014 - 18:06:54 EST
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:56 PM, James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2014, Kees Cook wrote:
>> >> > That would be because your tree is based on v3.17 and Kees' is based on
>> >> > v3.18-rc6 ...
>> >> James, I can base on whatever you like. I can do v3.17, or even
>> >> against your security-next. It seems everyone uses something
>> >> different. :)
>> > It's best to track my next branch as your upstream.
>> It'll trigger collisions with what's the x86 -next from luto's
>> changes. Should I just let Stephen sort that out?
Hm, it depends on 54ef6df3f3f1353d99c80c437259d317b2cd1cbd, so basing
against security-next would make the tree unbuildable. Perhaps I
should just wait for -rc1 to land first?
Chrome OS Security
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/