On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Kees, > > On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 16:57:49 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, yes, it does -- there were both ptrace changes and prctl changes. >> >> And at least the ptrace changes are, IIRC, in -mm, which has no tree. >> :P Given that, what's the best thing for me to do for this to be easy >> for you to pull? > > Does this set of patches *depend* on functionality provided by those, or > just produce conflicts against the other changes? If it is just > conflicts, then base your tree on Linus and I and (he when it comes to > it) can fix the conflicts as needed (with some hints if you think it is a > good idea i.e. is the conflicts are particularly complex). No explicit dependency. It's just a conflict in how ptrace options are set, defined, and masked (and STOP being renumbered). Other than the ptrace changes, the whole series patches cleanly onto both trees. The resolved version is less code and easier to read, so I don't suspect it'll be a challenge at all. thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
