On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 6:22 AM Joel Granados <joel.granados@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 03:42:39PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 04:55:58PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > You could have static const within functions too. You get the rodata > > > protection and function local scope, best of both worlds? > > > > timer_active is on the stack, so it can't be static const. > > > > Does this really need to be cc'd to such a wide distribution list? > That is a very good question. I removed 160 people from the original > e-mail and left the ones that where previously involved with this patch > and left all the lists for good measure. But it seems I can reduce it > even more. > > How about this: For these treewide efforts I just leave the people that > are/were involved in the series and add two lists: linux-kernel and > linux-hardening. > > Unless someone screams, I'll try this out on my next treewide. I'm not screaming about it :) but anything that touches the LSM, SELinux, or audit code (or matches the regex in MAINTAINERS) I would prefer to see on the associated mailing list. -- paul-moore.com
