> On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Joel, > >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:13:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google) >>> <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week >>>> where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same >>>> behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by >>>> Andy [2]. >>>> >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181111173650.GA256781@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/69CE06CC-E47C-4992-848A-66EB23EE6C74@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd") >>> >>> What tree is that commit in? Can we not just fold this in? >> >> It is in linux-next. Could we keep both commits so we have the history? > > Well, its in Andrew's mmotm, so its up to him. > > Unless mmotm is more magical than I think, the commit hash in your fixed tag is already nonsense. mmotm gets rebased all the time, and is only barely a git tree.
