On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 09:40:01PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 09:29:03PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: >> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:25:13PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: >> > >> > > Your experimental branch looks good to me, thanks. >> > >> > Pushed into for-next; I'm probably going to move that stuff into a never-rebased >> > branch, merged into for-next and safe to pull into your tree if you want to do >> > something on top of that set. >> >> OK, vfs.git#getname is it; it's in never-to-be-rebased mode and it's merged >> into vfs.git#for-next (as of right now; HEAD is 9ee4c4). If you need to do >> something on top of that stuff, pulling vfs.git#getname is safe. > > Unfortunately, that thing was -rc2-based, leading to conflict with mainline > in kernel/auditsc.c. My fault, I hadn't realized that "audit: create private > file name copies when auditing inodes" in audit tree was, in fact, present in > mainline. vfs.git#getname2 is -rc3-based, same resulting kernel/auditsc.c as > in #getname. Please, use that. vfs.git#for-next merges from that one now, > so tomorrow -next should have no problems from vfs.git... > I have tested vfs.git#getname2 on top of Linux v3.19-rc5-184-gc4e00f1 (plus block-loopmq patchset) and it boots fine on Ubuntu/precise amd64. Just curious, where will this audit-filename-handling overhaul go through? Through Paul's audit-next or Al's vfs-next tree? AFAICS, a new linux-next will be available on Monday (2015-01-26). I try to retest with this. - Sedat - -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
