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

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 27/10/2021 à 13:29, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:55 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the audit tree got conflicts in:
> > > >
> > > >    arch/powerpc/kernel/audit.c
> > > >    arch/powerpc/kernel/compat_audit.c
> > > >
> > > > between commit:
> > > >
> > > >    566af8cda399 ("powerpc/audit: Convert powerpc to AUDIT_ARCH_COMPAT_GENERIC")
> > > >
> > > > from the powerpc tree and commits:
> > > >
> > > >    42f355ef59a2 ("audit: replace magic audit syscall class numbers with macros")
> > > >    1c30e3af8a79 ("audit: add support for the openat2 syscall")
> > > >
> > > > from the audit tree.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > I guess this is OK, unless the audit folks disagree. I could revert the
> > > powerpc commit and try it again later.
> > >
> > > If I don't hear anything I'll leave it as-is.
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Last I recall from the powerpc/audit thread there were still some
> > issues with audit working properly in your testing, has that been
> > resolved?
>
> No.
>
> There's one test failure both before and after the conversion to use the
> generic code.
>
> > If nothing else, -rc7 seems a bit late for this to hit -next for me to
> > feel comfortable about this.
>
> OK. I'll revert the patch in my tree.

But it's been in the pipe since end of August and no one reported any 
issue other issue than the pre-existing one, so what's the new issue 
that prevents us to merge it two monthes later, and how do we walk 
forward then ?

Thanks
Christophe