Re: [-next PATCH] security: use octal not symbolic permissions

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 11:49 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 17:12 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > Joe, in general I really appreciate the fixes you send, but these
> > > patches that cross a lot of subsystem boundaries (this isn't the first
> > > one that does this) causes unnecessary conflicts in -next and during
> > > the merge window.  Could you split your patches up from now on please?
> > 
> > Sorry. No.  Merge conflicts are inherent in this system.
> 
> Yes, merge conflicts are inherent in this system when one makes a
> single change which impacts multiple subsystems, e.g. changing a core
> kernel function which is called by multiple subsystems.  However, that
> isn't what this patch does, it makes a number of self-contained
> changes across multiple subsystems; there are no cross-subsystem
> dependencies in this patch.  You are increasing the likelihood of
> conflicts for no good reason; that is why I'm asking you to split this
> patch and others like it.

No.  History shows with high certainty that splitting
patches like this across multiple subsystems of a primary
subsystem means that the entire patchset is not completely
applied.

It's _much_ simpler and provides a generic mechanism to
get the entire patch applied to send a single patch to the
top level subsystem maintainer.