On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:57 PM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri 14-09-18 15:13:28, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: > > On 2018-09-04 18:06, Jan Kara wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Jan, > > > > > this is the third revision of the series that addresses problems I have > > > identified when trying to understand how exactly is kernel/audit_tree.c using > > > generic fsnotify framework. I hope I have understood all the interactions right > > > but careful review is certainly welcome. > > > > I've tried to review it as carefully as I am able. As best I understand > > it, this all looks reasonable and an improvement over the previous > > state. Thanks for the hard work. > > > > FWIW, > > Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks for review! Paul should I send you updated patch 9 with that one > variable renamed or will you do that small change while merging the series? Hi Jan, Thanks again for these patches and your patience; some travel, holidays, and a job change delayed my review. However, everything looks okay to me (minus the one problem I noted in patch 09/11). I've added the patches to audit/working-fsnotify_fixes and I'm going to start stressing them as soon as I get a test kernel built with the idea of merging them into audit/next as soon as the upcoming merge window closes. As far as the variable rename is concerned, that's not something I would prefer to change during a merge, but if you or Richard wanted to submit a renaming patch I would be okay with that in this case. If you do submit the rename patch, please base it on top of this patchset (or audit/working-fsnotify_fixes). Thanks! -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
