On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 10:26 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Mimi, > > On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 16:04:07 -0500 Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 07:53 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 15:46:22 -0500 Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > [Cc'ing Stephen Rothwell] > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 14:25 +1100, James Morris wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > James is staging the subsystem patches independently of each other, in > > > > > > case of a similar problem, so that they can be pulled separately. > > > > > > There's a new "next-general" branch. > > > > > > > > > > If you send me a pull request, I'm combining branches into next-testing, > > > > > too, which is pulled into -next. > > > > > > > > linux-next already has the IMA patches, which might be confusing. > > > > > > Not if they are the same *commits* i.e. if the tree/branch that James > > > merges is the same as the one that I already merge of yours > > > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/zohar/linux-integrity#next) > > > > James' security tree is based on -rc3, while the integrity tree is > > based on -rc4. The rebased integrity patches are now in my security- > > next-integrity branch. > > So since those patches are now in James tree, you should drop them from > the integrity tree. Ok, I had been planning on sending an independent pull request to Linus, as requested. Mimi